I'm running -CURRENT from around Dec 28th, 2002, 04:00 -0600, on a
testing machine. While debugging a 3rd party module, I occasionally
find myself in situations where I can't obtain a core dump. (e.g., a
panic related to a lock assertion occurs just before the dump routine
beg
I've seen similar erratic behaviour myself when using gdb without -k
command switch. Can it be your problem too?
Also, you might want to look for sample .gdbinit files for useful gbd
macros other people are using. These files are in the tree somewhere.
--
Alexander Kabaev
To Unsubscribe: send m
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 10:19:03AM -0500, Alexander Kabaev wrote:
> I've seen similar erratic behaviour myself when using gdb without -k
> command switch. Can it be your problem too?
Are you saying that you don't see this problem when using the -k flag?
I don't have the -k option at my di
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, ryan beasley wrote:
> The serial port on the -CURRENT machine is compiled at 38400. FYI,
> jesper == 4.7R-p2 debugging box, and fredrik == 5.0 panic box. This
> instance of gdb was compiled from source w/ the patches found in the
> devel/gdb52 port. (I don't h
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Nate Lawson wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, ryan beasley wrote:
> > The serial port on the -CURRENT machine is compiled at 38400. FYI,
> > jesper == 4.7R-p2 debugging box, and fredrik == 5.0 panic box. This
> > instance of gdb was compiled from source w/ the patches
On Fri, Jan 03, 2003 at 09:13:44AM -0600, ryan beasley wrote:
> instance of gdb was compiled from source w/ the patches found in the
> devel/gdb52 port. (I don't have room for the ports tree locally.)
pkg_add -r gdb52
(or try the gdb53 port also)
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROT
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 06:32:43AM +1100, Bruce Evans wrote:
> Another possible problem is using the same serial line for gdb as for
> the console and mixing speeds. If the userland speed differs from the
> low level speed, then the i/o routines switch back and forth between
> the speeds for every
On Sun, 5 Jan 2003, ryan beasley wrote:
> For what it's worth, I've taken Nate's suggestion and backed down to
> 9600bps, and this problem hasn't occurred yet, so I'm assuming this is
> the "fix". (The 4.7 machine has an ASUS P2B-D board, and the -CURRENT
> box is a recent Dell Dim
