On Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:41:32 -0700 Piet Delaney wrote: > On Wed, 2006-08-30 at 16:40 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 30, 2006 at 12:35:21PM -0700, Piet Delaney wrote: > > > > > > > > Simple question -- and to be quite honest with you -- I don't > > > > understand why you wouldn't want to simply use gdb alone > > > > in this case? > > > > > > I don't see any reason for core file not to be read correctly by > > > gdb. It's convenient to use gdb directly sometimes, for example > > > while using the ddd GUI. > > > > > > > You can run gdb to open core files as of today but the debugging > > capability will be limited. For ex. kernel core headers have the info > > of linearly mapped region only and they don't contain the virt address > > info of non-linearly mapped regions. So one can not debug the non-linearly > > mapped regions like modules. > > Amit's modified gdb might help for that problem. I haven't used > it but it allows gdb to load debug information about modules. You > can also use a script Amit wrote to explicitly load module info > into stock gdb; that also might work with kernel core files. > > > > > > kgdb isn't having any problems with kernel threads back traces. > > > The kernel objects are tweaked with dwarf code, but I see no > > > problem with using the same paradigm with crash. Works great. > > > > > > > Can you give some more details on what do you mean by kernel objects > > are tweaked with dwarf code. > > Attached is the cfi_annotations.patch patch from the kgdb-2.6.16 patch > which is part of the kgdb patch series. I believe George Anzinger used > a similar dwarf patch in the 2.6 mm series patches that Andrew provided. > I think Tom Rini wrote both of them. ENOPATCH

--- ~Randy