toolcains outdated… by years

[CopyrightPhilly]

ok, ill start this by saying that when I first seen visualGDB I was interested in supporting it an buying the product for the purpose of building and debugging Linux builds from visual studio.

Like most I like visual studios ide, it beats all other ide’s for c/c++ that iv tried, the problem is its microsofts and god forbid they release it for Linux or any other compiler but msvc…

so that being said, I’m a lazy twat and would rather have something else make my make files for me, even better make them, build them and then let me debug the project. VisualGDB just started looking worth the £63.75 (yes that’s converted, and for the Linux only version) however, the big off put, is your paying that price to be lazy and they cant even update the mingw tool chains they provided the files for. The mingw 64 tool chain is built using gcc 4.7.1.

GCC 4.7.1 = released June 14, 2012

so 2012…. ok the latest mingw 64 is built using 4.8.4 (December 19, 2014) why on earth is the tool chain hosted by sysprocs over 2 and a half years old. Try building QT using the tool chains provided, it will fail.

so why on earth guys would we pay to be lazy when the company we are paying is also, failing to update tool chains, for no other possible reason then being lazy themselves.

primary application regards to licencing = .net

outdated toolchains not related to msvc

 

is this company actually linked to Microsoft trying to make money or have I just missed the point?

 

• This topic was modified 8 years, 10 months ago by CopyrightPhilly.
• This topic was modified 8 years, 10 months ago by support.

[support]

Hi,

Thank you for your feedback. We indeed did not update the MinGW64 toolchain because there is not much demand for it among our users. For the popular areas (like embedded ARM, supporting new Linux-based platform, etc) we do actually publish updated toolchains.

Furthermore, VisualGDB is not limited to a specific set of toolchains! You can use any MinGW release you wish. Simply point VisualGDB to it and it will be able to integrate with it. That’s why instead of rebuilding something that already exists we focus on adding usability features, quick setup features and state-of-the-art IntelliSense.

If you say VisualGDB is absolutely not worth it, you could try setting up Eclipse with the same toolchains. However you would quickly find that many time-saving features provided by VisualGDB are missing there. Regarding your .Net suggestion, thank you for it, we will address it in the next release.

[Author]

Posts