From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Maciej Kalisiak To: gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: problem with completion and C++ mangling Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:19:00 -0000 Message-id: <20001128151845.A2778@khazad-dum> References: <20001128141830.A2481@khazad-dum> X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg00266.html On Tue, Nov 28, 2000 at 02:54:17PM -0500, Daniel Berlin wrote: > It's a known bug, with a patch to fix it to go into CVS soon. I see. Forgive another newbie question: when is the next version of gdb expected (or the one that would in all likelyhood include the said patch)? I can wait, but I just would like to know when I should revisit this issue again, i.e. download a fixed version... (I'm not keen on builiding from CVS, as I'd rather use a prebuilt version from my distribution) > Until then, just add a single quote before the C++ name, and > completion will work fine. Ah, great, now I can get on with my debugging, thanks. -- Maciej Kalisiak mac@dgp.toronto.edu www.dgp.toronto.edu/~mac >From shebs@apple.com Tue Nov 28 12:33:00 2000 From: Stan Shebs To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: kevinb@cygnus.com, gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com Subject: Re: gdb@gnu.org Discussion Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 12:33:00 -0000 Message-id: <3A24169E.9EE71B8D@apple.com> References: <3A1CA166.A24792EF@cygnus.com> <1001123095026.ZM7306@ocotillo.lan> <3A1F0804.6BB7E0AC@apple.com> <200011250745.CAA29442@indy.delorie.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg00267.html Content-length: 1384 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > With all due respect to the GCC steering committee and the job it > performs, I'd like to point out that the GDB development team has > quite a different style of making decisions than the GCC team. The > most prominent evidence to the difference in style is the relatively > high number of discussions on GCC-related forums where people get > flamed or treated with vitriol, for no good reason, while discussing > design issues; such incidents are practically absent from GDB forums. > 'Nuff said. An interesting insight, I've been ruminating on it. I think the differences are mainly due to individual personalities; at the risk of angering *everybody* by generalizing :-) , I'll observe that GCC developers have tended to be more abrasive online than GDB developers. This has been the case for a long time, at least since 1993, when I started at Cygnus fulltime. Indeed, the GCC committee has helped to tone this down, by publicly reining in people who've gone out of bounds; on the old gcc2 list, there were few expectations of civility, and things would get pretty hot regularly. Discussion style is one thing that's under our collective control, independent of maintainers, committees, etc. If we each commit ourselves to not flame, and to respond temperately to flames by others, the overall tone of the discussion will always be civil. Stan >From Denset.Serralta@radisys.com Tue Nov 28 13:25:00 2000 From: Denset.Serralta@radisys.com To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: GDB does not step into or over "sleep" function Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:25:00 -0000 Message-id: X-SW-Source: 2000-11/msg00268.html Content-length: 684 We are using GDB 4.18 on an NT host to debug target software running on a PowerPC based adapter. We are using a function called ProcessSleep which is a call to our kernel. It basically allocates a semaphore, blocks on it subject to a user specified timeout and then returns the semaphore.One problem we can't seem to get around though is that if the process being debugged makes a 'ProcessSleep' call, the debugger never gains control when we step over it. Even if we set a breakpoint past the call and let it run, it never returns. A status utility that we have shows the process as queued, but we never regain control. Does anybody know any reason(s) why this should happen.