Hi Jeff,
I am debugging Wireshark using glibtool ( using OS X 10.8 ) .
I tried to print the log using following ways :
+ printf(" my method is called ");
+ g_print("my method is called ");
+ g_warning("my method is called ");
but none of them worked for me.
Sorry for previous blank link.
Please see following log : http://pastebin.com/Gasw5WS7
--Thanks and Regards
Subhash Kumar Singh
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 8:17 PM, Jeff Morriss <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 04/21/13 04:34, Subh. Singh wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeff,
>>
>> I started looking on bug 8454
>> <https://bugs.wireshark.org/**bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8454<https://bugs.wireshark.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=8454>
>> >**.
>>
>>
>> On running wireshark on glibtool I found that some object files are
>> missing.
>> Please see thislog
>> <http://hastebin.com/**roniheduju.scala<http://hastebin.com/roniheduju.scala>
>> >.
>>
>
> For some reason that link doesn't work for me: I just get a blank page
> with what appears to be a prompt.
>
> Anyway, one thing to keep in mind when debugging a libtool-generated
> program that hasn't been installed yet: you have to get the libtool stuff
> out of the way. To do that with 'gdb' I usually do:
>
> % libtool --mode=execute gdb ./wireshark
>
>
> when I tried to add the break point for method get_int_value then I
>> got following message
>>
>> (gdb) b get_int_value
>> Function "get_int_value" not defined.
>> Make breakpoint pending on future shared library load? (y or [n]) y
>> Breakpoint 1 (get_int_value) pending.
>>
>> So please tell me how to debug the get_int_value.
>>
>
> Does the above not work (does it not break when it calls that function)?
> That may be because you didn't run gdb from libtool (as per above).
> Normally pending breakpoints like that work for me.
>
> If that doesn't work, well, you can always resort to putting printf()'s
> (or g_warning()'s) in that function.
>
>
> I looked on the code of get_int_value.
>> Can you please explain me how to approach to fix the bug 8454 same time
>> please give me some more information on bug 8454.
>>
>
> There's a link to the bug where the problem was originally discovered in
> the bug; reading that may lend some information.
>
> I think the main point is that the current corner-case behavior is
> inconsistent and should be made consistent. I don't have any opinion on
> what they should do; maybe the bug report has some opinion (so asking the
> question on the bug might help).
>
>
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <[email protected]>
Archives: http://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe
