From owner-freebsd-hackers  Wed Jun 26 17:33:03 1996
Return-Path: owner-hackers
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) id RAA08401
          for hackers-outgoing; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 17:33:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [204.216.27.226])
          by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.5/8.7.3) with ESMTP id RAA08396
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 17:33:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from time.cdrom.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.7.5/8.6.9) with ESMTP id RAA28554; Wed, 26 Jun 1996 17:31:04 -0700 (PDT)
To: Tony Kimball <alk@Think.COM>
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: longstanding, woeful inadeqacy 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Wed, 26 Jun 1996 19:08:32 CDT."
             <199606270008.TAA28833@compound.Think.COM> 
Date: Wed, 26 Jun 1996 17:31:04 -0700
Message-ID: <28552.835835464@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

> For about 12 years now I have been reading the occasional USENET post
> asking how to debug through an exec call, and have never seen a
> reasonable answer.   I infer that it is not possible.  
> 
> How should this be fixed?

I think it's something that'd be far more trouble that it's worth
to "fix" - why not just debug the binary being exec'd if that's the
issue?

					Jordan