From: Jeffrey Faust (jefffaust_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-05-23 08:20:56
Ulrich Eckhardt wrote:
> I'm not against making things debugger-friendly, but not at the cost of
> performance. Also, I find the objections about having different layouts
> valid.
It would only be for a "debug" build--where the extra information would be
usable, and where the user has made some explicit choice that performance
is not as important as extra information. That's the idea behind a
checked STL implementation, which will assert if it detects something
invalid.
The issue of different layouts is a problem. I had not considered that.
Now that it's been brought up 3 times, I'm thouroughly aware of it ;)
> Other than that, I know that at least GDB and MS debugger can be
> scripted and that it might be a different approach that is non-intrusive.
I have tried to modify autoexp.dat in the past, but have failed. I'll
give it another try before looking for another solution.
Thanks for the feedback,
Jeff Faust