Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 21:15:31 +0200 From: Roman Divacky <rdivacky@freebsd.org> To: John Baldwin <jhb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Coleman Kane <cokane@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: Patch to fix crashing experienced while using GDB Message-ID: <20080418191531.GA75488@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <200804181318.07160.jhb@freebsd.org> References: <1208208513.1279.51.camel@localhost> <20080418002037.GA11705@dragon.NUXI.org> <20080418082227.GA38438@freebsd.org> <200804181318.07160.jhb@freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 01:18:06PM -0400, John Baldwin wrote: > On Friday 18 April 2008 04:22:27 am Roman Divacky wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 05:20:37PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > > > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 05:36:38PM -0400, Coleman Kane wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2008-04-14 at 17:28 -0400, Coleman Kane wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > > > Some time ago, I got the attached patch from jhb (IIRC). It has worked > > > > > for me and cured a problem that was making a bunch of my code > > > > > un-traceable using GDB on FreeBSD. Debugging would result in a crash > of > > > > > GDB, preventing me from seeing what bug I had that crashed my program. > > > > > > > > > > Anyhow, my question is: Is there any reason this shouldn't be pushed > > > > > into the tree? Who do I need to talk to (obrien? the compiler > > > > > maintainers?) about it? > > > > > > > > BTW, this has already been fixed in the GDB sources (using nearly the > > > > exact same code) since August 2004 in rev. 1.79 of gdb/target.c: > > > > > > > > > http://sourceware.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/src/gdb/target.c?rev=1.79&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup&cvsroot=src > > > > > > OK, I'll take a look at it. > > > > while you are at it, can you please take a look at: > > > > www.vlakno.cz/~rdivacky/gdb.patch > > > > it (or some parts of it) fixes problems with attaching to a process in gdb,> > try > > > > witten ~# cat& > > [1] 17309 > > witten ~# gdb > > (gdb) attach 17309 > > Does just the infcmd.c change fix this? The frame.c part of the patch looks > to just be noise. it's highly possible... haven't tested it though
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080418191531.GA75488>