GDB Won't Break On Solaris 64 Executables

  • Follow


Gentle People:

   I am having trouble getting GDB breakpoints
to work on Solaris 64 bit executables.

   Have any of you seen this problem? If yes
what was the work around?

   Are there better debuggers for Solaris 64 bit
executables?

   What debugger do the 64 bit developers use?

   Also please note any Users Manuals for alternate
debuggers.

   Your help will be greatly appreciated.

Thomas Dineen

# gdb   test_hello_new64
GNU gdb 6.2.1
Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain 
conditions.
Type "show copying" to see the conditions.
There is absolutely no warranty for GDB.  Type "show warranty" for details.
This GDB was configured as "sparc-sun-solaris2.8"...(no debugging 
symbols found)...
(gdb) b _start
Breakpoint 1 at 0x100000f20
(gdb) r
Starting program: 
/export/home/tools/soft_dev/examples/test_hello/test/test_hello_new64
procfs:4265 -- process not stopped.
procfs: ...giving up...
(gdb)

0
Reply Thomas 11/24/2004 4:35:25 AM

In article <hcUod.3393$uV6.395@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
 Thomas Dineen <tdineen@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

> Gentle People:
> 
>    I am having trouble getting GDB breakpoints
> to work on Solaris 64 bit executables.
> 
>    Have any of you seen this problem? If yes
> what was the work around?
> 
>    Are there better debuggers for Solaris 64 bit
> executables?
> 
>    What debugger do the 64 bit developers use?
> 
>    Also please note any Users Manuals for alternate
> debuggers.
> 
>    Your help will be greatly appreciated.
> 
> Thomas Dineen
> 
> # gdb   test_hello_new64
> GNU gdb 6.2.1
> Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
> GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are
> welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain 
> conditions.
> Type "show copying" to see the conditions.
> There is absolutely no warranty for GDB.  Type "show warranty" for details.
> This GDB was configured as "sparc-sun-solaris2.8"...(no debugging 
> symbols found)...
> (gdb) b _start
> Breakpoint 1 at 0x100000f20
> (gdb) r
> Starting program: 
> /export/home/tools/soft_dev/examples/test_hello/test/test_hello_new64
> procfs:4265 -- process not stopped.
> procfs: ...giving up...
> (gdb)

I thought this was one of the selling points for Sun's compilers and 
tools.  Back when gcc didn't do 64-bit very well (3.0 IIRC), Sun was the 
only game in town for 64-bit compiles.

I take it you built gcc and gdb on a Ultra running a 64-bit kernel.  
Isn't the error message "no debugging symbols found" from compiling 
without "-g"?  What happens if you build test_hello_new64 with -g?

-- 
DeeDee, don't press that button!  DeeDee!  NO!  Dee...



0
Reply Michael 11/24/2004 7:26:11 AM


Thomas Dineen <tdineen@ix.netcom.com> writes in comp.unix.solaris:
|   Are there better debuggers for Solaris 64 bit
|executables?
|
|   What debugger do the 64 bit developers use?

The 64-bit developers at Sun usually use the dbx debugger included with
the Sun Studio compilers, or the mdb debugger included with the OS.
(dbx is more like gdb - mdb takes a lot more work to learn and is more of
a forensic debugger than an interactive one, but is better suited for
kernel debugging.  I normally use dbx unless there's an mdb plugin
module I need to use, simply because that's what I know best.)

|   Also please note any Users Manuals for alternate
|debuggers.

Sun Studio 9 dbx: 	http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-6692
Solaris 9 mdb:		http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/806-6545

-- 
________________________________________________________________________
Alan Coopersmith * alanc@alum.calberkeley.org * Alan.Coopersmith@Sun.COM
 http://www.csua.berkeley.edu/~alanc/   *   http://blogs.sun.com/alanc/
  Working for, but definitely not speaking for, Sun Microsystems, Inc.
0
Reply Alan 11/24/2004 4:10:55 PM

2 Replies
226 Views

(page loaded in 0.078 seconds)

Similiar Articles:













7/29/2012 7:20:08 AM


Reply: