From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5260 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2005 19:17:07 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 5245 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Sep 2005 19:17:04 -0000 Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:17:04 +0000 Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (root@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl [192.168.0.2]) by sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8JJGrCP024951; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:16:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.3) with ESMTP id j8JJGrwH010110; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:16:53 +0200 (CEST) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id j8JJGrrM013515; Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:16:53 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 19:17:00 -0000 Message-Id: <200509191916.j8JJGrrM013515@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: pkoning@equallogic.com CC: dhighley@highley-recommended.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <17198.65491.928100.449663@gargle.gargle.HOWL> (message from Paul Koning on Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:13:39 -0400) Subject: Re: RedHat Advanced Server 3 and thread debugging References: <1127149130.20359@horse.he.net> <200509191810.j8JIAXGU023356@douglas.highley-recommended.com> <17198.65491.928100.449663@gargle.gargle.HOWL> X-SW-Source: 2005-09/txt/msg00131.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:13:39 -0400 > From: Paul Koning > > David> "Ajay Patel wrote:" > >> David, > >> > >> GDB is broken for statically linked application. No body has > >> bothered to fix this. > > David> Has the platform/tool world silently decided not to support > David> static builds? > > I think Ajay is confused. Debugging statically linked applications > works just fine; if anything, it's the more reliable case since it is > the simpler case. > Well, that all depends on what version of the Linux kernel you're running, what version of glibc you're running, and of course what version of gdb you're using. It's also important to realize that if you're stripping (parts of) your binaries, there's simply not enough information left for gdb to produce meaningful backtraces. If you use -rdynamic, at least there is the dynamic symbol table for gdb to use. Mark