Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:24:03 -0500
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-no-personal-reply-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: cygwin bughunt (FAQ alert?)
Message-ID: <20050121002403.GE12628@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <79F81D5F4790D344B05F489CE2AC8AB7109551 AT dubexdc03 DOT dubex DOT net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <79F81D5F4790D344B05F489CE2AC8AB7109551@dubexdc03.dubex.net>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i

On Fri, Jan 21, 2005 at 12:56:14AM +0100, David Dindorp wrote:
>David Dindorp wrote:
>>Tracking it down with GDB to cygwin_split_path() : 0x61073e06 was easy.
>
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Since cygwin isn't built with debugging symbols, the symbols that you
>>do see in gdb are basically meaningless.
>
>Isn't there any way to compile the debugging symbols into a separate
>file that GDB could then play with if it wanted to?

Yes.  But it doesn't work quite right on cygwin, or at least didn't the
last time I looked at it.  It's on my todo to revisit this at some point.

However, that doesn't really solve your immediate concern.

>Joshua Daniel Franklin wrote:
>>> I think this has come up often enough to be a FAQ.  Joshua?
>> Sure, how about this:
>
>> either build your own debugging version by following the instructions
>> at http://cygwin.com/faq/faq_3.html#SEC102 or use a current snapshot
>> from http://cygwin.com/snapshots/
>
>Eep.  Totally overlooked the entire FAQ.  I apologize!!!
>
>The snapshots page says that it's a stripped version.
>Who should I trust, the snapshot page or the FAQ?

You should trust me when I tell you that the snapshots haven't been
stripped recently.

However, oops, this means that the advice of using a snapshot shouldn't
go into the FAQ since this isn't a permanent arrangement.

>Is it considered atrocious to just replace the DLL with a snapshot one
>and keep the EXE's from stock?

No, not at all.

>Pierre A.  Humblet wrote:
>>Should we also provide an optional cygwin_debug package, with only an
>>unstripped cygwin1.dll.debug ?
>
>I for one would be eternally grateful :-).  FWIW, MySQL AB does the
>same with MyODBC (in the same 'package' though).  I've found it useful
>a number of times.

Again, this doesn't address your immediate concern.  A snapshot is your
best bet.

cgf

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/