Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 15:30:57 -0500 (CDT) From: Tony Kimball <alk@Think.COM> To: fhackers@jraynard.demon.co.uk Cc: jkh@time.cdrom.com, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: longstanding, woeful inadeqacy Message-ID: <199606272030.PAA26920@compound.Think.COM> References: <199606270638.BAA00387@compound.Think.COM> <199606270949.JAA00671@jraynard.demon.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Quoth James Raynard on Thu, 27 June: : > Easier in what sense? It is essentially impossible to debug anything : > that forks, since by the time you can attach to it, it has gone : > veering wildly out of control. : : Not if you put a sleep loop in it And if I don't have source code? Or a compiler? Or if the insertion of the sleep loop fixes the compiler bug which I was trying to find in the first place? Or if the sleep loop prevents the process from meeting a synchronization constraint which makes it impossible to debug the original execution profile?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199606272030.PAA26920>