Zach Welch wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 14:42 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
On Monday 30 November 2009, Zachary T Welch wrote:
Registers a signal handler to catch SIGSEGV in order to display the
stack where the program crashed.
Is this for inside OpenOCD? If so, I'd rather
Hm - I'm with David here: I am not very fond of re-inventing parts of
gdb to include it in OpenOCD.
Fully implementing this would make OpenOCD depend on libbfd just for
crash reports - this is ridiculous.
If something like this was added, it should not create any
dependencies or do anything
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 09:37 +0100, Michael Schwingen wrote:
Zach Welch wrote:
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 14:42 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
On Monday 30 November 2009, Zachary T Welch wrote:
Registers a signal handler to catch SIGSEGV in order to display the
stack where the program
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 09:45 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
Hm - I'm with David here: I am not very fond of re-inventing parts of
gdb to include it in OpenOCD.
Fully implementing this would make OpenOCD depend on libbfd just for
crash reports - this is ridiculous.
If something like this
Registers a signal handler to catch SIGSEGV in order to display the
stack where the program crashed.
Is this for inside OpenOCD? If so, I'd rather just expect folk
to run inside GDB. Either they're running natively and should
never see SEGV ... or they should be able to fire up
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 09:45 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
Hm - I'm with David here: I am not very fond of re-inventing parts of
gdb to include it in OpenOCD.
Fully implementing this would make OpenOCD depend on libbfd
On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
How about adding an option to statically link with GDB or create
a script that launched OpenOCD via GDB as default?
I have shell scripts that start up OpenOCD and points it
at a particular board.
The src/openocd invocation is usually preceded
2009/12/1 David Brownell davi...@pacbell.net:
On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Ųyvind Harboe wrote:
How about adding an option to statically link with GDB or create
a script that launched OpenOCD via GDB as default?
I have shell scripts that start up OpenOCD and points it
at a particular board.
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 01:23 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
Registers a signal handler to catch SIGSEGV in order to display the
stack where the program crashed.
Is this for inside OpenOCD? If so, I'd rather just expect folk
to run inside GDB. Either they're running natively and
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 10:25 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 09:45 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
Hm - I'm with David here: I am not very fond of re-inventing parts of
gdb to include it in OpenOCD.
No one was talking about linking with GDB. That's just insane. ;)
libbfd is part of binutils. But again it should be_optional.
OK. Explain the benefit of complicating OpenOCD vs. adding a script
to launch OpenOCD via GDB then...
Seriously... you've never had a Heisenbug either? Am I
On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
The src/openocd invocation is usually preceded by a comment
# gdb --args \
this script does not work when some of the args have a space
in them, but yes, a script pretty much like that one. :-)
The args get quoted. GDB
On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 01:23 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
Registers a signal handler to catch SIGSEGV in order to display the
stack where the program crashed.
Is this for inside OpenOCD? If so, I'd rather just expect folk
to
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 01:52 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Zach Welch wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 01:23 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
Registers a signal handler to catch SIGSEGV in order to display the
stack where the program crashed.
Is this
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 10:36 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
No one was talking about linking with GDB. That's just insane. ;)
libbfd is part of binutils. But again it should be_optional.
OK. Explain the benefit of complicating OpenOCD vs. adding a script
to launch OpenOCD via GDB then...
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 10:36 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
No one was talking about linking with GDB. That's just insane. ;)
libbfd is part of binutils. But again it should be_optional.
OK. Explain the benefit of
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 11:06 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 10:36 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
No one was talking about linking with GDB. That's just insane. ;)
libbfd is part of binutils. But
Again, you have missed the point. This is about users and our releases.
I cannot make that point more clearly. It is not about developers who
are willing to use GDB. It's about users who aren't.
I haven't done the statistics, but are we not seing SEGFAULT's
in development builds mostly?
Zach Welch wrote:
Hm - I'm with David here: I am not very fond of re-inventing parts of
gdb to include it in OpenOCD.
Fully implementing this would make OpenOCD depend on libbfd just for
crash reports - this is ridiculous.
You clearly missed the part where I say it will be
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 11:14 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
Again, you have missed the point. This is about users and our releases.
I cannot make that point more clearly. It is not about developers who
are willing to use GDB. It's about users who aren't.
I haven't done the statistics, but
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 11:27 +0100, Michael Schwingen wrote:
Zach Welch wrote:
Hm - I'm with David here: I am not very fond of re-inventing parts of
gdb to include it in OpenOCD.
Fully implementing this would make OpenOCD depend on libbfd just for
crash reports - this is ridiculous.
Zach Welch wrote:
To be fair, these extra steps also moot my Heisenbug argument; however,
these are still activities that could be expected by these platforms'
users. Running GDB is not a user activity, except _possibly_ when using
it _with_ OpenOCD. Remember, not everyone uses OpenOCD with
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:49 PM, Michael Schwingen
rincew...@discworld.dascon.de wrote:
Zach Welch wrote:
To be fair, these extra steps also moot my Heisenbug argument; however,
these are still activities that could be expected by these platforms'
users. Running GDB is not a user activity,
On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
Zach made a good point that there are bug reports we are not receiving
today. Those are the ones he's after here I think.
I'm sure this project loses more potential bug reports by requiring
folk to subscribe to Yet Another Mailing List than we
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 10:25 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 09:45 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
Hm - I'm with David here: I am
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 21:57 +0100, Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 10:25 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:17 AM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 21:57 +0100, Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 10:25 +0100, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Andreas Fritiofson
andreas.fritiof...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 21:57 +0100, Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:32 AM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 23:09 +0100, Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Andreas Fritiofson
andreas.fritiof...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 21:57 +0100, Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
On
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 10:08 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
On Tuesday 01 December 2009, Øyvind Harboe wrote:
Zach made a good point that there are bug reports we are not receiving
today. Those are the ones he's after here I think.
I'm sure this project loses more potential bug reports by
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 23:09 +0100, Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:08 PM, Andreas Fritiofson
andreas.fritiof...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 10:23 PM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net
On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 00:56 +0100, Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 11:50 PM, Zach Welch z...@superlucidity.net wrote:
On Tue, 2009-12-01 at 23:09 +0100, Andreas Fritiofson wrote:
[snip]
I like it, except I think it needs to be disabled in the default case.
We will get
Registers a signal handler to catch SIGSEGV in order to display the
stack where the program crashed.
Adds the 'stack' helper module with generic stack trace routines that
can be used to implement better debugging messages.
Signed-off-by: Zachary T Welch z...@superlucidity.net
---
On Monday 30 November 2009, Zachary T Welch wrote:
Registers a signal handler to catch SIGSEGV in order to display the
stack where the program crashed.
Is this for inside OpenOCD? If so, I'd rather just expect folk
to run inside GDB. Either they're running natively and should
never see SEGV
On Mon, 2009-11-30 at 14:42 -0800, David Brownell wrote:
On Monday 30 November 2009, Zachary T Welch wrote:
Registers a signal handler to catch SIGSEGV in order to display the
stack where the program crashed.
Is this for inside OpenOCD? If so, I'd rather just expect folk
to run inside
35 matches
Mail list logo
