Debugger versions mess

Mar 01, 2004 3 Replies

Help!



I have created a setup of RH 7.2 on my Linux box, got a matching gdbserver on my 486 embedded Linux board and it works pretty well. However, RH 7.2 is fairly old and I want to upgrade to RH 9 to run something else than emacs as editor (anjuta is nice). Now comes the problem. The gdb that comes with RH 9 is newer than the gdbserver on the embedded machine so all kinds of error messages comes up when I try to use them together. If I try to use the gdbserver from RH 9 on the embedded it will not start because it claims the libc to be too old. Running the gdb from RH 7.2 starts without complains but doesn't work.



Basically I am out of sync - I know that, but how do I move on? Preferably get the gdbserver from RH 9 to work on the embedded without having to build a new (and thus unproven) kernel for that.



Comments appreciated,



Jens.


Rebuild gdb from source would appear to be a trivial solution. Presumably you already have a way to compile for the target. Just build a new gdbserver for it.

Cheers,

In order to understand recursion you must first understand recursion. Remove /-nsp/ for email.

Thanks,

That's what I would like to do, but the embedded computer is so small that there is no compiler on it. In fact I think this is a more general problem as my own application is likely to have the same problem as the gdbserver with libc. I have so far just been trying the debugger with the application compiled on the old RH.

So I guess my question is more general like: How do I get the gcc to link with an older libc and not just the current in the lib directory?

I would have to do that for both the gdbserver intended for the embedded and for my own application. Am I right?

Jens.

If you kept a copy of your older RH filesystem around you could chroot into it, and do your compilations from there. Or reinstall a small version of it to use as a chroot environment.

While it is probably possible to link to an older version of libc under your new system(this is a guess), it would probably require all sorts of odd command line options or wacky gcc modifications. Probably a royal pain if you are trying to compile stuff with overly complicated build scripts(like automake/autoconfig).

Karl.

Jens wrote:

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required