Re: gdb instead of adb

On Wednesday, 14 July 1999 at 22:45:32 -0700, Mike Smith wrote: >> Is the reason why adb hasn't been ported to freebsd because the source is >> proprietary? > > You make no sense. What don't you understand? It makes plenty of sense to me (and the answer is: yes). >> If gdb should suffice for my

Re: gdb instead of adb

On Wednesday, 14 July 1999 at 22:45:32 -0700, Mike Smith wrote: >> Is the reason why adb hasn't been ported to freebsd because the source is >> proprietary? > > You make no sense. What don't you understand? It makes plenty of sense to me (and the answer is: yes). >> If gdb should suffice for my

Re: gdb instead of adb

Mike Smith wrote: > > > Is the reason why adb hasn't been ported to freebsd because the source is > > proprietary? > > You make no sense. > > > If gdb should suffice for my debugging needs, how can a breakpoint be set > > at a particular interrupt, or even at any interrupt? The break command > >

Re: gdb instead of adb

Mike Smith wrote: > > > Is the reason why adb hasn't been ported to freebsd because the source is > > proprietary? > > You make no sense. > > > If gdb should suffice for my debugging needs, how can a breakpoint be set > > at a particular interrupt, or even at any interrupt? The break command >

Re: gdb instead of adb

> Is the reason why adb hasn't been ported to freebsd because the source is > proprietary? You make no sense. > If gdb should suffice for my debugging needs, how can a breakpoint be set > at a particular interrupt, or even at any interrupt? The break command > only seems to accept functions, offs

Re: gdb instead of adb

> Is the reason why adb hasn't been ported to freebsd because the source is > proprietary? You make no sense. > If gdb should suffice for my debugging needs, how can a breakpoint be set > at a particular interrupt, or even at any interrupt? The break command > only seems to accept functions, off