From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Jul 12 13:39:35 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C70D37B401 for ; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:39:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ns1.xcllnt.net (209-128-86-226.bayarea.net [209.128.86.226]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 436D143FDD for ; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:39:34 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net [192.168.4.201]) by ns1.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6CKdVv1079908; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:39:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@piii.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: from dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6CKdVE8006103; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:39:31 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net) Received: (from marcel@localhost) by dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net (8.12.9/8.12.9/Submit) id h6CKdUb7006102; Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:39:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from marcel) Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:39:30 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar To: Mark Kettenis Message-ID: <20030712203930.GA5446@dhcp01.pn.xcllnt.net> References: <20030711225002.GA71126@ns1.xcllnt.net> <200307121105.h6CB50l1047073@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200307121105.h6CB50l1047073@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: GDB - do we dare? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 20:39:35 -0000 On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > o We still have the Alpha gdb -k bug moved over from the 5.1 todo > list to the 5.2 todo list. I think this is "just" a bug fix. > > I'm not really familliar with the support for debugging FreeBSD > kernels in GDB since that support is not in the FSF tree. Is there > any chance that this code will be contributed back? This would > involve a copyright assignment, which could prove to be a major > obstacle. The copyright of our kgdb support is already the FSF. See /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/gdb/kvm-fbsd.c > The current support for debuggung libc_r-based threading is also not > present in the FSF tree. So the question raised above applies here too. It looks to me that it can be contributed back. > I'm not really familiar with KSE, but AFAIK the kernel interfaces for > debugging KSE's aren't there yet. I think that's mostly due to a knowledge gap. We just need people who can bridge between gdb and FreeBSD. Someone like you :-) > o gdb(1) has created a 6.x branch, so it's likely that a new release > is in the pipeline (within 6 months?). Upgrading to 5.3 may make > a future upgrade easier due to smaller diffs and refreshed know-how. > > GDB 6.0 will defenitely be released before the end of the year :-). > We're aiming at the end of August, but it will probably be somewhere > in September. Interesting. It may even be possible to make gdb 6.0 part of FreeBSD 5.2 scheduling wise. Do we need a binutils update? We now have 2.13.2. > A1 If having support for amd64 is a major reason for doing a new > import of GDB, importing the upcoming GDB 6.0 would make more sense > to me. No ia64 is the major reason :-) > A2 I'm volunteering to help out here. Cool, thanks. Shall we just create a p4 branch and start hacking? > better on FreeBSD/i386 and FreeBSD/Alpha now. Now that I've got it > working on FreeBSD/amd64, I'll give FreeBSD/ia64 a shot. We probably need to talk then, because the ptrace interface needs to be fleshed out and I planned to do that while porting gdb. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net