[5415] in testers
Re: GCC 3.2.2
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kev)
Tue May 20 18:18:19 2003
Message-Id: <200305202218.SAA08037@multics.mit.edu>
To: Omri Schwarz <ocschwar@MIT.EDU>
cc: Kev <klmitch@MIT.EDU>, testers@MIT.EDU
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 20 May 2003 18:06:37 EDT."
<200305202206.SAA15086@alice-whacker.mit.edu>
Date: Tue, 20 May 2003 18:18:17 -0400
From: Kev <klmitch@MIT.EDU>
> The something that is wrong is the lack of proper debugging symbols
> for the foo() function.
>
> I ran into this in a much more complicated case (my
> big blob of C code) where I could not use pause() to create
> points for catching the process with GDB because I could
> not get a full stack frame. The call to pause() and the calling
> function would both be lost.
Ah, ok. Hmmm...weird. If I didn't know better, I'd guess that gcc
optimized the call away into a direct call to pause()--but is that
what's happening in your bigger blob of code? As for your original
problem--have you tried using breakpoints? If so, perhaps you could
just raise a signal instead of pause()'ing...
--
Kevin L. Mitchell <klmitch@mit.edu>
