GDB - do we dare?

David O'Brien obrien at
Sun Jul 13 16:57:07 PDT 2003

On Sun, Jul 13, 2003 at 05:57:34PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>    Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2003 13:39:30 -0700
>    From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel at>
>    On Sat, Jul 12, 2003 at 01:05:00PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
>    > 
>    >    o  We still have the Alpha gdb -k bug moved over from the 5.1 todo
>    >       list to the 5.2 todo list. I think this is "just" a bug fix.
>    > 
>    > I'm not really familliar with the support for debugging FreeBSD
>    > kernels in GDB since that support is not in the FSF tree.  Is there
>    > any chance that this code will be contributed back?  This would
>    > involve a copyright assignment, which could prove to be a major
>    > obstacle.
>    The copyright of our kgdb support is already the FSF. See
>    /usr/src/gnu/usr.bin/binutils/gdb/kvm-fbsd.c
> I'll have to find out whether the paperwork is actually there.

As you know I do have paperwork on file, which covers some of the work.
The bigger question is will the fuctionality get resistance to being part
of the FSF GDB?  Can you evaluate the FreeBSD additions from that point
of view?

> > Interesting. It may even be possible to make gdb 6.0 part of FreeBSD 5.2
> > scheduling wise. Do we need a binutils update? We now have 2.13.2.

Please, don't even worry about that.  You'll get lost in a non-issue.
The real issue is getting a patch that would update our bits to
GDB 6.0 -- not the actual integration.

-- David  (obrien at

More information about the freebsd-current mailing list