From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18930 invoked by alias); 18 Jul 2008 08:03:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 18922 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jul 2008 08:03:13 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com (HELO yw-out-1718.google.com) (74.125.46.155) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:02:55 +0000 Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 9so73460ywk.48 for ; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:02:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.230.11 with SMTP id c11mr992168wfh.334.1216368172672; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.143.165.14 with HTTP; Fri, 18 Jul 2008 01:02:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5d649bdb0807180102l6d453ed0rb2ba277812095e12@mail.gmail.com> Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2008 08:03:00 -0000 From: "Neo Jia" To: gdb@gnu.org, gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Is add-symbol-files broken on 64bit? (Need help!!!) Cc: "Daniel Jacobowitz" In-Reply-To: <5d649bdb0807180100u58ec702g2a79a43173736dc8@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <5d649bdb0807180100u58ec702g2a79a43173736dc8@mail.gmail.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-07/txt/msg00203.txt.bz2 Sorry, re-send with plain-text. Thanks, Neo On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 1:00 AM, Neo Jia wrote: > > hi, > > I am using the gdb to debug Linux kernel module on x86-64 bit with a patched kernel (kgdb). Everything works fine for the kernel itself, I can break on any functions, and see the sources. But, I can't break on the symbols in the kernel module after it is loaded. I used the "add-symbol-files" to add the sections for that loadable module. > > The same setup works fine for 32bit and I even can see the symbols/sources by running gdb directly against the 64bit .ko file. > > Any suggestions? I am struggling with this question for a long time. > > Thanks, > Neo > > -- > I would remember that if researchers were not ambitious > probably today we haven't the technology we are using! -- I would remember that if researchers were not ambitious probably today we haven't the technology we are using!