From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2003 10:26:57 -0400 From: Kent Borg To: Kenneth Johansson Cc: Jean-Denis Boyer , "linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org" Subject: Re: ptrace Problem Message-ID: <20030716102657.D20719@borg.org> References: <20030715174945.G12505@borg.org> <1058351871.31114.26.camel@spawn> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <1058351871.31114.26.camel@spawn>; from kenneth.johansson@etx.ericsson.se on Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 12:37:51PM +0200 Sender: owner-linuxppc-embedded@lists.linuxppc.org List-Id: On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 12:37:51PM +0200, Kenneth Johansson wrote: > > On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 23:49, Kent Borg wrote: > > > Looking at likely source tarballs we have sitting around it seems very > > likely that binutils were built from 2.13.2.1, and glibc 2.3.2. (How > > can I be sure?) > > binutils binaries usually respond with the version when given -V on the > command line. Oh! I thought that was a version of an individual component, but lordy, nm and objdump both give the same number and it matches the tar I had guessed we had used. > libc can be checked with objdump -x and checking the Version > definitions. It lists a series of numbers ranging from 2.0 to 2.2.2. > This should not be a problem gdb dose all the work using ptrace. Indeed, gdb didn't drag me down into any libraries. > Regarding your gdb problems have you tried with a kernel without bdi2000 > support in the kernel. No, but I will now. Thanks, -kb ** Sent via the linuxppc-embedded mail list. See http://lists.linuxppc.org/