Re: GDB and watcom (Daniel Berlin)

Re: GDB and watcom (Daniel Berlin)

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sep 29, 2003, at 10:37 AM, y2bismil@engmail.uwaterloo.ca wrote:

> Hey Daniel,
>
> Here is the binary you requested.  I tried sending it to the mailing 
> list, but
> it would not accept zip files.
> I've enclosed a very simple application which was compiled with open 
> watcom 1.0
> using DWARF debug format.  It was compiled as a win32 character mode 
> binary.  I
> can debug it fine using the open watcom tools.  But I cannot using GDB 
> (in
> cygwin).
>
> Let me know what you find.
> Yamin


BFD doesn't detect it as having dwarf2 info.
--Dan

Re: GDB and watcom (Daniel Berlin)

[y2bismil]

Okay, so can we safely conclude, Watcom uses a non-standard version of the 
DWARF format as I stated in my original post?  



Do you know the exact document (preferable with a location) that GDBs DWARF 
format is based on, so I can see if the changes needed would be great or not.  
From my scanning of the watcom sources, it looks like they use:

Unix International Programming Languages SIG, Version 2, Draft 6, dated April
12, 1993

But I could be wrong.


Thanks,

Yamin

Quoting Daniel Berlin <dberlin@dberlin.org>:

> 
> On Sep 29, 2003, at 10:37 AM, y2bismil@engmail.uwaterloo.ca wrote:
> 
> > Hey Daniel,
> >
> > Here is the binary you requested.  I tried sending it to the mailing 
> > list, but
> > it would not accept zip files.
> > I've enclosed a very simple application which was compiled with open 
> > watcom 1.0
> > using DWARF debug format.  It was compiled as a win32 character mode 
> > binary.  I
> > can debug it fine using the open watcom tools.  But I cannot using GDB 
> > (in
> > cygwin).
> >
> > Let me know what you find.
> > Yamin
> 
> 
> BFD doesn't detect it as having dwarf2 info.
> --Dan
> 




----------------------------------------
This mail sent through www.mywaterloo.ca

Re: GDB and watcom (Daniel Berlin)

[Daniel Berlin]

On Sep 29, 2003, at 10:59 AM, y2bismil@engmail.uwaterloo.ca wrote:

> Okay, so can we safely conclude, Watcom uses a non-standard version of 
> the
> DWARF format as I stated in my original post?
No.
>
It means that BFD is incorrect.
It definitely has dwarf2 info in it, i looked.
--Dan