Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2002 11:07:05 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf AT redhat DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Mysterious gdb behavior.
Message-ID: <20020802150705.GB22866@redhat.com>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <3D47F9AA DOT 10912 DOT 64BD0B1E AT localhost> <3D49FDDC DOT 29861 DOT 6C9D6C0C AT localhost>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3D49FDDC.29861.6C9D6C0C@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23.1i

On Fri, Aug 02, 2002 at 03:34:52AM -0400, Paul Derbyshire wrote:
>On 31 Jul 2002 at 16:45, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>> >Not knowing whether it was a cygwin-specific problem or not I was leery
>> >of going to a bug submission page to report what might be a general gdb
>> >problem.  Plus, I suspected a misconfiguration of some kind, or perhaps
>> >a Winblows hiccup that might go away with a reboot or an update patch.
>> 
>> So what is it then?  Am I an expert whose advice you are soliciting or
>> someone to argue with and ignore when I offer suggestions?  I said that
>> cygcheck output might be useful.  You chose not to provide it.  This
>> is a trend.
>
>What's cygcheck? I still haven't heard where to download it or how to 
>use it. I suppose it's a utility for diagnosing configuration 
>problems with cygwin? IIRC there's something like that for djgpp.
>
>> >Nice theory, but it just doesn't fit the facts.
>> 
>> I'm not convinced.  I'll bet if you specifically rebuild the file in question
>> with cygwin gcc it will probably be debuggable.
>
>I doubt it will behave differently after being rebuilt with the 
>cygwin gcc compared to after merely being built for the first time 
>with the cygwin gcc.
>
>I build the "hw" test by typing "gcc hw.c -o hw.exe -g -O2" at the 
>bash prompt. It's already been verified that "gcc" at the bash prompt 
>invokes the correct (Cygwin) gcc.
>
>Also, the executables that debug fine were built the same way. They 
>weren't built before djgpp was installed (in fact djgpp was installed 
>before Cygwin was), nor before any configuration change involving 
>paths. I don't see any way a problem causing the wrong gcc to be used 
>could affect only some of the executables built with it.
>
>> >Also, how long have you suspected it might be using the wrong gcc?
>> 
>> Now you're questioning my motives, huh?
>
>Just wondering why you've spent the last several days beating around 
>the bush instead of getting to the point.

That's one.

cgf

--
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/