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. -- John BaldwinReceived on Fri Apr 18 2008 - 17:05:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:30 UTC