From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 520 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2002 14:40:18 -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 513 invoked from network); 4 Apr 2002 14:40:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.112.240.27) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Apr 2002 14:40:16 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48CBC3E59; Thu, 4 Apr 2002 09:40:12 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3CAC65CC.5060302@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 06:40:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.9) Gecko/20020328 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: kettenis@gnu.org Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Documenting platform-specific problems References: <200204011127.g31BREP03441@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 > Since we now run gdb.base/attach.exp on every platform, I discovered a > bug in FreeBSD that prevents us from successfully detaching from an > attached process. There seems to be no way around this problem, and > I'm not really willing to disable attach/detach on FreeBSD since > attaching works fine and still is a useful feature. However, I'd like > to document this limitation somewhere. Can I stick something in > PROBLEMS, like in the attached patch, or is there a better location? Hmm, I was thinking of a summary of the issue in PROBLEMS and a reference to the bug report (PR gdb/NNNN) that contained the patch. But: I don't know how ok it is for PROBLEMS to refer to stuff only accessable via the web. Hmm, this is PRMS, anyone remember how to query the DB via e-mail? > The attached patch documents this for GDB 5.2, but this has been > broken forever. Looks kind of funny but I can't think of a better > way. > > Comments? > Andrew