From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20901 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2002 17:21:18 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 20825 invoked from network); 24 Jan 2002 17:21:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 24 Jan 2002 17:21:12 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16TnZ0-0007Bq-00; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:21:26 -0500 Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 09:21:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Johan Walles Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Trouble debugging a Java Virtual Machine on Linux Message-ID: <20020124122126.B26301@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Johan Walles , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <3C500AAC.5030709@appeal.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C500AAC.5030709@appeal.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00288.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 24, 2002 at 02:22:52PM +0100, Johan Walles wrote: > Now, I'd like very much to get some input from somebody knowledgable > about gdb. First, is there already some simple way of interfacing with > gdb to tell it to use our functions for managing processes and not its > own? If not, does patching gdb seem like a reasonable solution? What > would have to happen for these patches to get accepted into the official > gdb? Oh, the other thing I meant to mention. For your last question: - the patches would need to be clean and not overly target-specific - the copyright on them would need to be assigned to the FSF. I don't remember the address to ask for paperwork - fsf-records@gnu.org? -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer