Linus Torvalds wrote:
[...]
Hmm. You could try variations on the appended patch. Try changing the
"#if 0" to "#if 1" in various combinations, to see which one Kylix seems
to care about.
Sorry about the delay, but being Valentine's day and all changes our
priorities a bit ;)
Anyway, a friend of mine tested the patch and reported that the
combinations 000 (all comented out), 001 (the first 2 commented out, but
the last one not) and 110 (...) still hung the debugger. I suppose these
were all the combinations he tested.
Tonight I'll have more time to test this again and we can probably have
a more interactive debug session.
In the mean time, just a few more data points. The debugger seems to use
LinuxThreads and only works with LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.4.1, even on a
2.6.10 kernel.
If we don't set this, the debugger hangs in a different way. Apparently
it is waiting on a signal, it has a signal pending that is one of the
first real-time signals (the ones used by LinuxThreads), but its signal
mask is blocking it.
Anyway, I thought of trying to attach a strace to the debugger tonight
to try to see exactly what the debugger is doing. Is this supposed to
work? Or trying to trace a process that is itself tracing another
process a no-no and can give unreliable results?
--
Paulo Marques - www.grupopie.com
Pointy-Haired Boss: I don't see anything that could stand in our way.
Dilbert: Sanity? Reality? The laws of physics?
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]