[RTEMS Project] #4739: Fatal errors running GDB testcase against libdebugger
RTEMS trac
trac at rtems.org
Thu Oct 13 00:52:37 UTC 2022
#4739: Fatal errors running GDB testcase against libdebugger
------------------------------+--------------------------
Reporter: Kévin Le Gouguec | Owner: Chris Johns
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: normal | Milestone:
Component: lib/debugger | Version: 6
Severity: normal | Resolution:
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
------------------------------+--------------------------
Comment (by Chris Johns):
Replying to [comment:4 Kévin Le Gouguec]:
> Replying to [comment:3 Chris Johns]:
> > I can add a feature to `libdebugger` to have it wait but I am not sure
what happens once connected? Do I break and wait for the user via GDB or
continue or should this be optional?
>
> Thanks for weighing in on this! Yes, I think it would make sense to
have an option to wait for GDB to (1) connect and (2) send a "continue".
Kind of similar to how QEMU has -gdb/-s to enable the debug stub, and a
dedicated switch, -S, to suspend execution at startup until the debugger
says to resume?
My pleasure and yes I agree it should be optional.
> Don't know how that would translate in terms of API (adding an argument
to rtems_debugger_start, if breaking the API is allowed; adding a function
to request the wait after rtems_debugger_start has been called; …);
I think breaking the API may be worth the short term pain. I tend to
prefer a `const char* option` type argument that can be `NULL`. That
argument can then be passed around and parsed by backends, transports etc
and options can come and go without breaking the API.
> should I open a separate feature request for this?
Yes please and assign to me.
--
Ticket URL: <http://devel.rtems.org/ticket/4739#comment:5>
RTEMS Project <http://www.rtems.org/>
RTEMS Project
More information about the bugs
mailing list