> I got all steps correctly except making gdb notice after the file_exec
> happened. By the way, do I need to reset the breakpoints when attaching to
> a new task (in a series of debuggings)?
You should need to, no. If gdb properly understands what's going on, it
will remove and reinsert breakp
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 08:22:32AM -0500, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I feel a bit stupid now. I guess I should try a compilation from a
> tree without such hacks...
Bingo.
--
I gotta ding ding dang a dang a long ding dong.
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
On Sat, Feb 23, 2002 at 07:56:47AM -0500, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > The only thing really funny about it is that there are no fds.
> > You could try seeing if that breaks things in a chroot'd environment
> > (exec 0<&- 1>&- 2>&-; exec /libexec/console-run blah).
>
> That is a hit!
Uhh. Y
On Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 08:27:29PM -0500, Roland McGrath wrote:
> > I tried to boot with -df (one of those, I don't remember which, makes sure
> > init pauses before calling file_exec), and attach gdb to the task, and set
> > break points.
>
> You have to make sure you're doing things in the pr
> I tried to boot with -df (one of those, I don't remember which, makes sure
> init pauses before calling file_exec), and attach gdb to the task, and set
> break points.
You have to make sure you're doing things in the proper order. If you set
breakpoints before the file_exec happens, then gdb
