Date: Sun, 4 Sep 2005 01:23:54 -0700 From: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.org> To: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> Cc: marcel@FreeBSD.org, sparc64@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: kgdb still broken? Message-ID: <20050904082354.GH20880@dragon.NUXI.org> In-Reply-To: <B7B4E68A-0DAF-471B-9588-7D7827AE272F@xcllnt.net> References: <20050819171555.GA45748@xor.obsecurity.org> <A4D2B753-A1C2-4686-A656-4DF061AB72A8@xcllnt.net> <20050820025336.GA94049@xor.obsecurity.org> <3DBF403C-80AA-46B4-A57B-8B78F033E368@xcllnt.net> <20050820182755.GA57524@xor.obsecurity.org> <9D6502D2-02E7-4BAE-B3C1-AA6D4613C8BC@xcllnt.net> <20050820190957.GA66426@xor.obsecurity.org> <B7B4E68A-0DAF-471B-9588-7D7827AE272F@xcllnt.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sat, Aug 20, 2005 at 12:31:02PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > On Aug 20, 2005, at 12:09 PM, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >>What exactly is unreliable about backtraces in kgdb? > > > >Wih gdb53 I see the following: ... > >While the kgdb output is useless: ... > I see. As I said, kgdb cannot yet unwind across trapframes. Other ... > platforms and merged into gdb. I don't see a point in fixing > backtraces at the cost of the partial threading support we have > now. In other words: it requires too much work for me to embark > on it right now. So you removed our working GDB 5.3-based kgdb and replaced it with something mostly useless. That's progress. -- -- David (obrien@FreeBSD.org)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20050904082354.GH20880>