Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2020 16:14:55 +0000 From: bugzilla-noreply@freebsd.org To: bugs@FreeBSD.org Subject: [Bug 233230] [bhyve] [patch] usage() doesn't list -G debug server option Message-ID: <bug-233230-227-TwzUdvM7BB@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> In-Reply-To: <bug-233230-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-233230-227@https.bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D233230 --- Comment #3 from John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org> --- I think it might be useful to constrain the description of -g a bit. It on= ly works for guests that support the 'bvmdebug' driver (which currently only exists for FreeBSD AFAIK), and similar to 'bmconsole' mostly existed as a simple device model before bhyve supported UARTs. A more portable approach= to connect to a gdb stub in a guest OS now is to use a UART to do so (e.g. I w= ire up /dev/nmdm<vm>2B to com2 for my guests so that gdb can connect to /dev/nmdm<vm>2A to connect to a gdb stub on com2 in the guest which potenti= ally works with multiple OSes). -G is more like qemu's -g. I'd be tempted to deprecate bvmconsole and bvmdebug, but I'd defer to Peter= on that. I realize we'd need to document -G better regardless, but if we want= to move forward with deprecating bvmdebug it might affect the language we use = to describe -g vs -G. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.=
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?bug-233230-227-TwzUdvM7BB>