Re: gcc -g -O2 == gdb stepping problems [Was: gdb mod_perl-2.0?]

2001-05-11 Thread barries
On Thu, May 10, 2001 at 08:37:38PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote: Yes, that is the standard reasonable default per the Gnu project's makefile standards, which is why autoconf sets it. As you discovered, it can be overridden by setting any value for CFLAGS prior to running configure. Should

Re: gcc -g -O2 == gdb stepping problems [Was: gdb mod_perl-2.0?]

2001-05-11 Thread Roy T. Fielding
Should the apr/configure.in prevent -O... options when it notes a -g? Seems like it's an awkward reasonable default for debug / maintainer mode. I don't think it should default to anything, but then I am not Gnu. I've never had any problems stepping through -O2 code, but that was before all

Re: gcc -g -O2 == gdb stepping problems [Was: gdb mod_perl-2.0?]

2001-05-10 Thread Doug MacEachern
On Thu, 10 May 2001, barries wrote: [cross-posting to new-httpd, since that's the more appropriate forum] Background: I had trouble single-stepping through the routine defined by AP_IMPLEMENT_HOOK_RUN_ALL(int,pre_connection,(conn_rec *c),(c),OK,DECLINED) seems like the rest of your

gdb mod_perl-2.0?

2001-05-04 Thread barries
Should I be able to use gdb-5.0 (or even 19991004) to single-step into and out of mod_perl-2.0's code? I see support for running the test server under gdb, so I'm hopeful. Running glibc-2.1.3 on va-linux's tweaked RedHat 6.2, FWIW. Typical gdb-5.0 session below, the 19941004 gdb that came

Re: gdb mod_perl-2.0?

2001-05-04 Thread Doug MacEachern
On Fri, 4 May 2001, barries wrote: Should I be able to use gdb-5.0 (or even 19991004) to single-step into and out of mod_perl-2.0's code? yes. Running glibc-2.1.3 on va-linux's tweaked RedHat 6.2, FWIW. Typical gdb-5.0 session below, the 19941004 gdb that came installed on his box behaves

Re: gdb mod_perl-2.0?

2001-05-04 Thread barries
On Fri, May 04, 2001 at 02:21:25PM -0700, Doug MacEachern wrote: Running glibc-2.1.3 on va-linux's tweaked RedHat 6.2, FWIW. Typical gdb-5.0 session below, the 19941004 gdb that came installed on his box behaves similarly. it looks fine to me, what is the problem exactly? Sorry, edit