Date: Tue, 23 Apr 1996 09:47:59 -0500 From: "Eric L. Hernes" <erich@lodgenet.com> To: Greg Lehey <lehey.pad@sni.de> Cc: erich@lodgenet.com (Eric L. Hernes), hackers@freebsd.org (FreeBSD hackers) Subject: Re: request for a new "feature" as regards DDB Message-ID: <199604231447.JAA21041@jake.lodgenet.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 23 Apr 1996 16:23:20 MDT." <199604231423.QAA08113@nixpbe.pdb.sni.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey writes: > >I think that we should consider making these breakpoint forms more >generally available (e.g. via ptrace ()). Do you feel like >retrofitting gdb to use them? > Yea, that'd be ok. I was planning to prototype it as an lkm, but maybe a wart on ptrace() would be just as easy. >I wouldn't call that a typical debugging sesseion. First, one of my >intentions is to have the addresses of the functions available to ddb >(they are to lowbug at the moment, though the implementation is pretty >kludgy). Secondly, the ptrace () interface should also be able to >specify whether you want a user-level or system-level breakpoint >(i.e. does hitting the breakpoint stop the process or the kernel?). >Thirdly, you would never want to use a kernel debugger to do things >which a user-level debugger can do. But if you're debugging a system >call, it's nice to be able to follow it back to the user level. I understand now. I have traced user-space through to a system call and back, but it was kind of a pain. > >> I've found gdb much easier to debug user programs. Now days you >> can even attach gdb to the program and get much of the per-process >> stuff. > >Is this available on FreeBSD? I hadn't noticed... > yup, needs procfs though, usually not a problem. > >Greg > -- erich@lodgenet.com http://rrnet.com/~erich erich@rrnet.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199604231447.JAA21041>