Sender:	rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Message-ID:	<39509781.1822F117@phekda.freeserve.co.uk>
Date:	Wed, 21 Jun 2000 11:22:58 +0100
From:	Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk>
X-Mailer:	Mozilla 4.51 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.14 i586)
X-Accept-Language:	de,fr
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	Eli Zaretskii <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
CC:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com, rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk
Subject:	Re: preprpcessor for overiding gcc optimation switch
References:	<Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1000621100041 DOT 11317C AT is>
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Hello.

Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 20 Jun 2000, Richard Dawe wrote:
> 
> > Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > > I fail to see how calling a VxD can disable a breakpoint.
[snip]
> >
> > I didn't say that I understood why this was happening.
> 
> I guess this makes two of us ;-)

Indeed. =)

> I find it hard to believe that Windows removes the breakpoint
> instructions.  What is probably happening is that somehow the
> breakpoint exception (exception 3) is blocked or disabled, by whatever
> reason that is triggered during libsock operation.  Hardware
> breakpoints use a different exception (exception 1), so they still
> work.

It sounds much more likely that exception 3 is disabled. I'm not sure if I
could credit Windows with silently removing the debugging instructions. ;)
At the moment there are too many degrees of freedom in the problem, that I
can think of:

Windows '95a vs. Windows '95 OSR2.1
gdb 4.18 vs. gdb 4.16 (IIRC)
gcc 2.8.1 vs. gcc 2.95.2
binutils 2.8.1 vs. binutils 2.9.5.1 beta

Plus, of course, the libsocket code. All these things may have some effect
on the debugging. Perhaps gcc, binutils can be eliminated from this list,
but I'm not sure.

Next time I'm debugging libsocket, I'll try to narrow this vague problem
down.

Thanks, bye, Rich =]

-- 
Richard Dawe
[ mailto:richdawe AT bigfoot DOT com | http://www.bigfoot.com/~richdawe/ ]

- Raw text -