> Also previously it was not possible to debug 64bits binary using GDB
> until this release.
> Tried gdb_20091224.tar.gz also was impossible to get any debugging info out.
>
It was built from gdb CVS HEAD (their development version)
and yes the gdb.exe was stripped. Maybe the development
version
Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
>> Sorry I don't but my compiler is pretty customized I guess it have
>> something to do with that.
>> Its a multi-lib patched gcc-4_4-branch a cross compiler, don't know if
>> it something to do with the config option --with-stabs ?
>> But how come you havent been able to en
> Sorry I don't but my compiler is pretty customized I guess it have
> something to do with that.
> Its a multi-lib patched gcc-4_4-branch a cross compiler, don't know if
> it something to do with the config option --with-stabs ?
> But how come you havent been able to encounter the problem, I downl
2010/1/8 Chris Sutcliffe :
> Hi Kai,
>
>> yes this bug I encounter some time ago, too. It is related to DLL files
>> not having any debugging information but are shown in backtrace. Here it
>> warns once about psymtab != symtab and code in gdb fix it afterwards. IMHO
>> this warning is simply prett
Hi Kai,
> yes this bug I encounter some time ago, too. It is related to DLL files
> not having any debugging information but are shown in backtrace. Here it
> warns once about psymtab != symtab and code in gdb fix it afterwards. IMHO
> this warning is simply pretty bogus here, or the DLL loader sh
> yes this bug I encounter some time ago, too. It is related to DLL files
> not having any debugging information but are shown in backtrace. Here it
> warns once about psymtab != symtab and code in gdb fix it afterwards. IMHO
> this warning is simply pretty bogus here, or the DLL loader should
"t66...@gmail.com" wrote on 08.01.2010 15:10:30:
> Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
> >>> Previously using GNU gdb 6.8
> >>> There were no such annoying warnings.
> >>>
> >> Correct, there have been several posts about this on the GDB mailing
> >> list. AFAIK, it has something do with the pretty printers
Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
>>> Previously using GNU gdb 6.8
>>> There were no such annoying warnings.
>>>
>> Correct, there have been several posts about this on the GDB mailing
>> list. AFAIK, it has something do with the pretty printers that were
>> introduced in 7.x. I've sent an email to t
>> Previously using GNU gdb 6.8
>> There were no such annoying warnings.
>
> Correct, there have been several posts about this on the GDB mailing
> list. AFAIK, it has something do with the pretty printers that were
> introduced in 7.x. I've sent an email to the GDB mailing list to see
> if there
>> Yes, if you do a Google for it, you'll get an explanation.
>>
> Previously using GNU gdb 6.8
> There were no such annoying warnings.
Correct, there have been several posts about this on the GDB mailing
list. AFAIK, it has something do with the pretty printers that were
introduced in 7.x. I've
10 matches
Mail list logo
