Re: RedHat Advanced Server 3 and thread debugging

[David Highley <dhighley@highley-recommended.com>]

"Mark Kettenis wrote:"
> 
> > Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:13:39 -0400
> > From: Paul Koning <pkoning@equallogic.com>
> > 
> >  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.

Kernel: 2.4.21-27.0.2.ELsmp
Glibc: 2.3.2-95.27
gcc: 3.2.3-42
gdb: 6.1post-1.20040607.17

> 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.

We do not strip the executables. But oddly no one has addressed the
original question of whether we get the same thread model between a
static and dynamic link given we see with the ps command multiple pid's
for a static link and one pid for dynamic link.

Then there was a reply that indicated there were patches, but no
furthur information. Do we need to patch the; OS, gcc, ld, gdb, etc.

> Mark
>