Re: gdb doesn't work very well with dynamic linked binaries

[Stan Shebs <shebs at apple dot com>]

"H . J . Lu" wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 03:33:54PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >
> >    >   If it won't be fixed in 5.1, I will follow your hints and implement a
> >    >   Linux only solution when it happens to me again.
> >
> > A generic x86 solution would be preferable, but a clean, well
> > documented Linux-only solution is certainly welcome.
> 
> Given do it clean, do it fast and make it to work, you can only
> pick 2 if I am the only one to do it. Since I don't have much time
> to do it, I have to pick do it fast.

I feel like I should say something here - doing things fast for GNU/Linux
has been a continuing source of problems.  All this stuff is going
to take the same amount of time in the end, whether we kludge now and
rewrite over and over later, or do it right the first time.  GDB Linux
thread hacking has been going on for a couple years, and it's still not
quite done; if I had known it was going to take this long, I would
have taken a harder line about accepting the original expedient version.

If you don't think that you're getting enough time to do things right,
then you should take it up with your management.  Since VA Linux thinks
highly enough of you to feature your picture prominently in their Linux
World booth :-), you should have enough pull to say "this is how long
it needs to take".  If you supply me with names, I will be happy to
take it up with them myself too - VA Linux' business depends heavily on
its reputation for good Linux engineering, and I doubt they want to
become known as the company that is pushing hacky forked versions of GDB
out into the world.

Stan