From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22385 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2003 02:26:52 -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 22375 invoked from network); 26 Feb 2003 02:26:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sundance.cse.ucsc.edu) (128.114.48.62) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 26 Feb 2003 02:26:52 -0000 Received: from localhost (smita@localhost) by sundance.cse.ucsc.edu (8.6.10/8.6.12) with ESMTP id SAA01409; Tue, 25 Feb 2003 18:26:48 -0800 X-Authentication-Warning: sundance.cse.ucsc.edu: smita owned process doing -bs Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 02:26:00 -0000 From: Smita To: Kris Warkentin cc: Jason Molenda , Subject: gdb detach In-Reply-To: <001e01c2dd3e$619dd640$2a00a8c0@dash> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00554.txt.bz2 Hi, I was wondering if there is a way to detach a process from gdb from outside the gdb process? Or is there a way to find out the pid of the gdb process that is controlling a process (i.e. when a process attched to gdb) Please forgive me if this the wrong group for this question. Thanks Smita On Tue, 25 Feb 2003, Kris Warkentin wrote: > > Our developers use the future-breaks a lot here at Apple, they work > > well for the sort of problem you're looking at. > > Thanks for responding Jason. I'm curious: are these patches in use at Apple > not considered suitable for submission to the FSF? I'm just wondering why > you maintain a separate tree rather than pushing everything out. We're > trying hard to get all our changes rolled in to avoid the hassle of having a > separate tree. > > cheers, > > Kris >