From: Martin Str|mberg <ams AT ludd DOT luth DOT se>
Message-Id: <200101241917.UAA27400@father.ludd.luth.se>
Subject: Re: Debugging on 386
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.91.1010124101047.25819F-100000@is> from Eli Zaretskii at "Jan 24, 2001 10:11:04 am"
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 20:17:25 +0100 (MET)
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

According to Eli Zaretskii:
> Could you try doing the same in FSDB?  I'd like to establish if this
> has anything to do with GDB's own code.

I can't get past the first exception 7 at 0x5535 (fstcw [esp]) it
seems. It doesn't matter if I have a breakpoint at main or not.

> Note that FSDB uses hardware-assisted breakpoints for the first 4
> breakpoints, so for a fair comparison either use hbr in GDB or put 4
> watchpoints on some random data in FSDB, so that the debug registers
> are taken, before you put your breakpoint.  (Actually, both variations
> are probably worth trying, in case using hbr in GDB somehow solves the
> problem, or at least produces a different effect that could give some
> insight.)

It seems it doesn't matter if I use hardware breakpoints or not.

Futhermore, if I do "handle SIGEMT nostop noprint; br main; r, n, n" I
get an endless loop of "Exiting due to signal SIGFPE". Again it
doesn't matter if I use hardware break points or not.


Right,

						MartinS