This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Mysterious gdb behavior.
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:07:05 -0400
- Subject: Re: Mysterious gdb behavior.
- References: <3D47F9AA.10912.64BD0B1E@localhost> <3D49FDDC.29861.6C9D6C0C@localhost>
- Reply-to: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 03:34:52AM -0400, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
>On 31 Jul 2002 at 16:45, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> >Not knowing whether it was a cygwin-specific problem or not I was leery
>> >of going to a bug submission page to report what might be a general gdb
>> >problem. Plus, I suspected a misconfiguration of some kind, or perhaps
>> >a Winblows hiccup that might go away with a reboot or an update patch.
>> So what is it then? Am I an expert whose advice you are soliciting or
>> someone to argue with and ignore when I offer suggestions? I said that
>> cygcheck output might be useful. You chose not to provide it. This
>> is a trend.
>What's cygcheck? I still haven't heard where to download it or how to
>use it. I suppose it's a utility for diagnosing configuration
>problems with cygwin? IIRC there's something like that for djgpp.
>> >Nice theory, but it just doesn't fit the facts.
>> I'm not convinced. I'll bet if you specifically rebuild the file in question
>> with cygwin gcc it will probably be debuggable.
>I doubt it will behave differently after being rebuilt with the
>cygwin gcc compared to after merely being built for the first time
>with the cygwin gcc.
>I build the "hw" test by typing "gcc hw.c -o hw.exe -g -O2" at the
>bash prompt. It's already been verified that "gcc" at the bash prompt
>invokes the correct (Cygwin) gcc.
>Also, the executables that debug fine were built the same way. They
>weren't built before djgpp was installed (in fact djgpp was installed
>before Cygwin was), nor before any configuration change involving
>paths. I don't see any way a problem causing the wrong gcc to be used
>could affect only some of the executables built with it.
>> >Also, how long have you suspected it might be using the wrong gcc?
>> Now you're questioning my motives, huh?
>Just wondering why you've spent the last several days beating around
>the bush instead of getting to the point.
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html