[uClinux-dev] gdbserver kills the shell?
stuarth at freescale.com
Thu Oct 6 03:56:09 EDT 2005
I sent a second patch yesterday which is much closer to the one you have
just sent (as it's based on Miles' patches). Did you see my second
The difference in the 2 sets of patches I sent can be explained by the
fact the first was extracted from the older
uClinux-dist-20041215.tar.bz2 and the second on
uClinux-dist-test-20050906.tar.bz2 (Miles Bader based).
I'll try your patches and let you know.
John Williams wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
> Stuart Hughes wrote:
>>Here's a patch based on Miles Bader's. I've removed the v850 sections
>>to try to make it just a nommu patch.
>>Again, this is against vanilla gdb-6.0.
> The version of gdb now in the uClinux-dist (/usr/gdb) appears to be 6.3.
> I manually merged Miles' older patches into this without too much
> trouble, and it seems to work ok for microblaze at least. The main
> changes are the fork->vrofk, adding config.srv target, and introducing
> support for the qOffset remote packet type.
> What's odd is the way this was done in his original patches is quite
> different in form (if not function) to the patch that you have sent.
> One notable difference in the version you have is use of hard coded
> ptrace(PTRACE_PEEKUSR,...) offsets for the TEXT, DATA and BSS queries,
> rather than the PT_TEXT_ADDR, _DATA_ADDR and _BSS_ADDR macros that are
> defined in linux-2.4.x/include/asm/ptrace.h
> I guess this is just versionitis, both on patches and base gdb versions.
> I agree with DaveM's sentiments that we should track the latest,
> whatever that may be. From where I'm sitting, that looks like gdb6.3
> that is currently in uClinux-dist. I've attached my patches, can you
> try them at your end, and see how they look?
More information about the uClinux-dev