Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2003 at 01:13:33PM -0500, Joe Buehler wrote: >> Max Bowsher wrote: >> >>> I got this from gdb: >>> (gdb) bt >>> #0 0x77f767ce in ?? () >>> >>> i.e. nothing useful. If anyone has any suggestions for getting more >>> info, please say. >> >> I posted a script to this list some time back that can be used to >> translate NT addresses (like the 0x77f767ce above) to function >> names. This can be >> a help in understanding what a thread is hanging on. > > The newly released version of gdb may do this automatically. I > accidentally included a patch from the net in this version which > added this functionality. I meant to remove it because it was rumored > to have problems but it seems > to be working ok, AFAICT.
Yes, it's working fine for me. Unless it really messes up, can you leave it in? > When doing backtraces, please remember that thread 1 is the main > thread. Usually that is the thread which is doing something > interesting. Yes. I found that out and posted a new backtrace. However, I've just realized that the so-called hang, was in fact merely a blocking accept() call that wasn't supposed to block. *embarrased* :-) And, for various reasons, I don't think it is the same hang bug that others have been mentioned. Max. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
