Aren’t there compiler warnings for potential overflows already, that come in the form of warning: something when compiling? Aren’t runtime overflows detected using the coredump in gdb, not gcc?
Shiny ASCII art seems like a waste of time and/or calling the dev stupid. What am i missing here?
Well, I don’t mind being called stupid if it makes my debugging easier. For many people visual/ graphical representation is much easier to comprehend than a block of text.
I mean, it would probably make sense to make this optional to accommodate as many preferences as possible. I, for one, prefer to get the human readable message right away instead of having to use another tool for it.
Aren’t there compiler warnings for potential overflows already, that come in the form of
warning: somethingwhen compiling? Aren’t runtime overflows detected using the coredump ingdb, notgcc?Shiny ASCII art seems like a waste of time and/or calling the dev stupid. What am i missing here?
Well, I don’t mind being called stupid if it makes my debugging easier. For many people visual/ graphical representation is much easier to comprehend than a block of text.
It is, our brains are graphical. So is
gdbs TUI. Is this another tool? 'Cos ASCII art in compiler output just seems odd to me.I mean, it would probably make sense to make this optional to accommodate as many preferences as possible. I, for one, prefer to get the human readable message right away instead of having to use another tool for it.
Not all features are for everyone. Maybe you’re experienced enough that showing a graph seems like an overkill when you can just read the warnings.
But I can imagine for someone that’s more entry level the graphs could make it easier to understand what the problem is