Re: [uml-devel] Problems with UML and debugging: gcc 3.2, gdb 5.2.1

[Brian J. M. <844...@in...>]

On Mon, Oct 28, 2002 at 03:30:25PM +0000, David Coulson wrote:
>=20
> I build all the UMLs on one box with 3.2, and they're just as stable as=
=20
> with 2.95.4.

Excellent!  Just hearing success stories is half the battle.  How
about gdbing them?  Can you get good stack traces?  All I ever seem to
get is the topmost frame.  If you do get good stack traces, what gdb
are you using?

> Well, that would be your problem.

Very well could be, but if the native kernel is stable (and it is
indeed!) why would "UMLing" it make it unstable.

> Elaborate on 'unstable'?

Crashes (panics) and hangs frequently or even repeatably.

> It doesn't compile, or the UML doesn't work.=20

Well, they can and will work for a while, and then inevitably I get a
crash or hang.  In the latter case I have to go back to the host and
start killing off processes.  Most times just killing the tracing
thread is enough, but sometimes I have to kill the whole process stack
for the UML with -9.

> Try an eariler 2.4.19 patch, say 2.4.19-16 or something.

OK.  The last response I got to trying to get this to work was "use
the latest patch".  I can certainly understand why the newer patches
would be more unstable, but don't newer patches also fix problems with
older ones?  I suppose somewhere in there there was a "this is a good
release, now let's do some (unstable) development on it".  I take it
2.4.19-16 was one of these points?

> More recent UML=20
> patches contain the skas merge which breaks lots of things, so unless=20
> you know what you're doing, make sure you use something which is known=20
> to actually work.

I will take your recommendation and try -16.

Thanx!

b.

--=20
Brian J. Murrell