Mail Archives: cygwin/2003/01/29/14:41:52
Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 01:13:33PM -0500, Joe Buehler wrote:
>> Max Bowsher wrote:
>>
>>> I got this from gdb:
>>> (gdb) bt
>>> #0 0x77f767ce in ?? ()
>>>
>>> i.e. nothing useful. If anyone has any suggestions for getting more
>>> info, please say.
>>
>> I posted a script to this list some time back that can be used to
>> translate NT addresses (like the 0x77f767ce above) to function
>> names. This can be
>> a help in understanding what a thread is hanging on.
>
> The newly released version of gdb may do this automatically. I
> accidentally included a patch from the net in this version which
> added this functionality. I meant to remove it because it was rumored
> to have problems but it seems
> to be working ok, AFAICT.
Yes, it's working fine for me. Unless it really messes up, can you leave it
in?
> When doing backtraces, please remember that thread 1 is the main
> thread. Usually that is the thread which is doing something
> interesting.
Yes. I found that out and posted a new backtrace. However, I've just
realized that the so-called hang, was in fact merely a blocking accept()
call that wasn't supposed to block. *embarrased* :-)
And, for various reasons, I don't think it is the same hang bug that others
have been mentioned.
Max.
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
- Raw text -