On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:55:03PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote:
> But the latest and greatest GDB (which should be a port) isn't
/usr/ports/devel/gdb51
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Kip Macy wrote:
> >
> > There's no reason freebsd-uthread.c has to be included in gdb.
>
> I think that there are instances when an individual wants to use the latest and
> greatest version of GDB and still have thread support. Even if the threads
> library does change, the o
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Loren James Rittle wrote:
> >> Loren Rittle indicated that they were [in a form useful to /usr/ports]
>
> Actually, to avoid all confusion, I privately wrote Kip to say that I
> was able to extract out his updated thread support and apply it to my
> local mainline binutils tr
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Kip Macy wrote:
> >
> > There's no reason freebsd-uthread.c has to be included in gdb.
>
> I think that there are instances when an individual wants to use the latest and
> greatest version of GDB and still have thread support. Even if the threads
> library does change, the
>> Loren Rittle indicated that they were [in a form useful to /usr/ports]
Actually, to avoid all confusion, I privately wrote Kip to say that I
was able to extract out his updated thread support and apply it to my
local mainline binutils tree. That is a bit different than indicating
the work is
See my page now. It contains a pointer to a tarball
with what I believe to be the appropriate style
patches and a single unified diff. I'm obviously new
to this so humor me and let me know if there are any
further problems.
--- David O'Brien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 1
>
> There's no reason freebsd-uthread.c has to be included in gdb.
I think that there are instances when an individual wants to use the latest and
greatest version of GDB and still have thread support. Even if the threads
library does change, the objfile function should be able to take that into
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Kip Macy wrote:
> Loren Rittle indicated that they were, but pointed out what you have already
> pointed out to me: freebsd-uthread.c is the work of others so my FSF paperwork
> won't be enough.
There's no reason freebsd-uthread.c has to be included in gdb.
We've been maintai
Loren Rittle indicated that they were, but pointed out what you have already
pointed out to me: freebsd-uthread.c is the work of others so my FSF paperwork
won't be enough.
I'll ask him to send you the patch he created.
-Kip
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, David O'Brien w
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 11:15:16PM -0800, Kip Macy wrote:
> An updated freebsd-uthread.c with core support is available off of the same
> page. I only just now got it working, and have not done any regression
> testing, so only use it if you have to.
I looked at http://www.eventdriven.org/freebsd
An updated freebsd-uthread.c with core support is available off of the same
page. I only just now got it working, and have not done any regression
testing, so only use it if you have to.
-Kip
On 11 Feb 2002, Nat Lanza wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-02-10 at 00:55, Kip Macy wrote
On Sun, 2002-02-10 at 00:55, Kip Macy wrote:
> A working version of gdb 5.1 with full user thread support (fixes for bin/24066,
> gnu/33182, and as yet unfiled seg fault when resuming from a non-running
> thread) is available at:
> http://www.eventdriven.org/freebsd.html
Excellent!
Thanks for do
I uploaded a new version this afternoon. You shouldn't have any more problems
(I downloaded the tarball and compiled it just to verify), but if you do, let me
know.
-Kip
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the bod
I just realized that having it in the form of a bitkeeper archive could make it
awkward to use because configure doesn't do an sccs get. I'm about to replace it
with a normal tar ball. Sorry for any inconvenience.
-Kip
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECT
14 matches
Mail list logo
