Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Date:	Sat, 8 May 1999 19:48:21 +0400
From:	Egor Duda <deo AT logos-m DOT ru>
X-Mailer:	The Bat! (v1.029) S/N A0F2A05A
Reply-To:	Egor Duda <deo AT logos-m DOT ru>
Organization:	DEO
Message-ID:	<13825.990508@logos-m.ru>
To:	cygwin-developers <cygwin-developers AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com>
Subject:	new core files
Mime-Version:	1.0

Hi!

I've written a (prototype) code to allow cygwin programs dump "real"
cores, and appropriate bfd back-end to make gdb understand them. And
i've got a couple of questions. First -- whether trapped program
should start separate process "a-la dr.Watson" to write core file, or
it should write core file by itself? And second -- where should *.core
go if current directory isn't writable?

Now, all committed pages from process's virtual memory are dumped to
core. So dump of the minimal program takes 6-10M, depending of
presence  or  absence of debug info in cygwin1.dll. I feel that it's a
bit overkill, but don't know common way to distinguish between "useful"
pages and "void" ones.

Yet another problem is with gdb itself. I've made it support new
target "cygwin-core", but it still recognizes dump as coff :( Perhaps
that's because dump contains parts of exe's image, which look pretty
much like coff. As a temporary workaround, I've set GNUTARGET env var
to "cygwin-core", but i don't feel it's a proper way. So would anybody
kindly point me to the appropriate place in docs?

Egor.          mailto:deo AT logos-m DOT ru ICQ 5165414 FidoNet 2:5020/496.19

- Raw text -