Date: Fri, 04 Apr 1997 10:54:43 -0500 From: Shawn Carey <smc@servtech.com> To: John Polstra <jdp@polstra.com> Cc: dyson@freebsd.org, hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Anyone else seen this? Message-ID: <33452443.41C67EA6@servtech.com> References: <199703270427.XAA04344@dyson.iquest.net> <333AA089.41C67EA6@servtech.com> <199703280313.TAA28286@austin.polstra.com> <333B5B51.41C67EA6@servtech.com> <199703282034.MAA04175@austin.polstra.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Polstra wrote: > > > If I run the same executable under GDB, it runs for 10 seconds at the > > most and then GDB kills it before reporting "Process terminated due to > > text file modification". No breakpoints, no nuthin. Not even a > > .gdbinit. > > > > Now, if I link with -static, the exectuable retains its timestamp, even > > whe run under GDB, and GDB lets it run peacefully. > > It's worth noting that there are hooks between gdb and the dynamic > linker. The dynamic linker can tell whether the program is being run > [...] Indeed it is. I just found out today that if I set a breakpoint on the static binary *before* running the program, I get the same result as when the binary is lunk dynamically. Sorry for the confusion on my part... Is there anything I can do to help solve this problem? If someone gave me a probable starting point, I'd be more than happy to thrash around with it... -Shawn
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?33452443.41C67EA6>