Core file debugging is not that well supported right now. I have made a couple of fixes from time to time, mainly because I see it as a possibility for testing other parts of the debugger, but I don't think it get's much use and testing (on linux anyway).
I *think* you might be able to get it working by adding paths to all libraries included in the core dump into your target.exec-search-paths (so something like /sysroot/lib, /sysroot/usr/lib, ...), but I don't guarantee anything. the --sysroot thingy sounds like the most straight-forward interface, so it would be awesome if you could get that working. On 4 May 2017 at 18:57, Scott Smith via lldb-dev <lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org> wrote: > Before I dive into the code to see if there's a bug, I wanted to see if I > was just doing it wrong. > > I have an application with a different libc, etc than the machine I'm > running the debugger on. The application also has a bunch of libraries that > simply don't exist in the normal location on my dev machine. I do have > everything extracted in a subdirectory with proper relative paths (i.e. > my_extract/lib/..., my_extract/opt/..., my_extract/usr/..., etc). > > With gdb, I'd do something like: > > set sysroot . > file opt/my_cool_program > core my_broken_coredump > > then everything would work. > > I've tried > (http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2016-January/009233.html): > > platform select --sysroot . host (also tried remote-linux, that didn't work > either) > target create opt/my_cool_program --core my_broken_coredump > > or based on: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2016-January/009235.html > > setting set target.exec-search-paths . > target create opt/my_cool_program --core my_broken_coredump > > or, based on: > http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/lldb-dev/2016-January/009236.html > > target create opt/my_cool_program --core my_broken_coredump > target modules search-paths add /lib ./lib > ... > > None of them seem to work. I tried lldb-3.9 in case any recent changes > affected this functionality. > > Is there a more correct way to do this? Or does this seem like a bug? > > > _______________________________________________ > lldb-dev mailing list > lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev > _______________________________________________ lldb-dev mailing list lldb-dev@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-dev
