GDB on Win2k doesn't work for me.
Mon Jun 26 14:50:00 GMT 2000
All right. What more information do you want? I have included the output of
cygcheck -s -v -r and some other information that could have possibly been
relevant. I *have* been trying to debug this problem, but I have run out
of ideas. AFAICT, this problem is caused by something in the configuration
of the system, rather than a problem with GDB itself.
I believe you that gdb works perfectly for you (there would have been
*many* more complaints otherwise). Unfortunately, it doesn't work for me.
At this point, all I can offer is moral support, until I hear *something*
helpful from the community at large (as I said I am out of ideas).
I am asking for any ideas, thoughts, suggestions (fixes...?) that anyone
out there might have concerning this problem so that I could continue to
work at it. That is what this mailing list is for, isn't it? What
other information could be useful? I'll do what I can to provide it from
my end, and I'm sure Paul Stodghill (who started this thread in the
first place) would be willing to do the same from his end.
I understand that debugging a problem which you cannot re-create
can be frustrating at the best of times. I recognize that posting to this
list will not always give me a quick fix. I also understand that you
are busy people and don't always have the either the time or the
inclination to tackle a somewhat obscure problem. All I am asking for
is a response which is a little more helpful than a link to the newest
version of the software.
On Mon, 26 Jun 2000, Chris Faylor wrote:
> The URL that I mentioned refers to the most recent version of gdb that
> is available. This is newer than the version that I temporarily made
> available in my private directory.
> I actually updated gdb two days after that announcement, so the current
> version is gdb-20000610.tar.gz.
> You should really follow the instructions in the announcement to
> download the newest version, i.e. copy setup to an EMPTY DIRECTORY and
> "setup gdb". There is no reason to update anything but gdb.
> If it works, then it would be nice if people offered more than just
> moral support over the problem and started debugging why it isn't
> I use this version of gdb almost every day on W2K and it works fine for
> me, so complaints about "Unknown signals" are not going to get the
> problem solved.
> On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 04:23:27PM -0400, Adam Schlegel wrote:
> >I have the same problem. I posted about it about a week ago and didn't get
> >a response (probably because I mentioned that I had found a *temporary*
> > http://sourceware.cygnus.com/ml/cygwin/2000-06/msg00921.html
> >I *do* have the latest version of gdb, AFAICT. At least, that is the
> >version that is sick for me. (The solution I mentioned involves using the
> >gdb that came with b20.1)
> >Maybe what I'm trying to say is: Paul, you're not alone.
> >Adam Schlegel
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to email@example.com
More information about the Cygwin