Re: [GDB follow-fork] behavior change for wait()

2012-04-29 Thread Marcel Moolenaar
On Apr 29, 2012, at 9:43 AM, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 03:33:49PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: >> Hi Dmitry, >> >> I've been testing the follow-fork changes in GDB and ran into some weird >> behavior. Without gdb, my test program (attached) prints something like: >>

Re: DragonFly added DT_GNU_HASH support to rtld

2012-04-29 Thread Alexander Kabaev
On Sun, 15 Apr 2012 17:43:22 +0300 Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:59:00AM +0100, John Marino wrote: > > Hi Konstantin, > > > > It seems that no BSD supported DT_GNU_HASH despite this option > > being available on the base binutils (FreeBSD's 2.17.50 binutils > > supports

Re: [GDB follow-fork] behavior change for wait()

2012-04-29 Thread Konstantin Belousov
On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 03:33:49PM -0700, Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > Hi Dmitry, > > I've been testing the follow-fork changes in GDB and ran into some weird > behavior. Without gdb, my test program (attached) prints something like: > > fbsdvm% ./fe > fe(41042): initial process. Doing fork &