(2013/01/08 13:13), ishikawa wrote:
> On (2013年01月08日 13:03), Joshua Cranmer wrote:
>> On 1/7/2013 10:00 PM, ishikawa wrote:
>>> If we can coerce the built-in traceback function to print something more
>>> meaningful, or
>>> if someone can suggest a way to attach gdb to a run of TB during "make
>>>
On (2013年01月08日 13:03), Joshua Cranmer wrote:
> On 1/7/2013 10:00 PM, ishikawa wrote:
>> If we can coerce the built-in traceback function to print something more
>> meaningful, or
>> if someone can suggest a way to attach gdb to a run of TB during "make
>> mozmill" session so that I can get a meani
On 1/7/2013 10:00 PM, ishikawa wrote:
If we can coerce the built-in traceback function to print something more
meaningful, or
if someone can suggest a way to attach gdb to a run of TB during "make
mozmill" session so that I can get a meaningful backtrace [*IF* gdb
can work out meaningful backtrac
I am trying to analyze the cause of ASSERTION messages in
the session log of "make mozmill" run of debug build of TB (comm-central).
Often the original coder would like to know where the function, which issues
ASSERTION, is made.
Fair enough.
However, the built-in traceback display is a little o
4 matches
Mail list logo
