Re: Post-mortem debugging and abort

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

David Kastrup wrote:
> Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:
>
> > > From: David Kastrup <address@hidden>
> > > Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:02:20 +0200
> > >
> > >
> > > I just wanted to report that the declaration of "abort" in glibc is not
> > > going to be changed to be more compatible with debugging.
> > >
> > > <URL:http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6522> shows my
> > > report and its resolution.
> > Sigh.  I concluded a long time ago that it is useless to ask GCC and
> > glibc developers to cater to debugging needs.  At best, you are
> > ignored; but more often you are flamed back into silence.
>
> I was a bit amused about "stop keeping to reopen".  I reopened once,
> giving detailed reasons and citing additional manpage data.  When the
> thing was basically closed without looking at the argument after a month
> of silence.  So it could not have been all that painful.
>
> > I'm sorry that you, David, wasted your effort as well on this.

The discussion of the bug looked like a very difficult thing ;-)

I do not understand the details, but the only thing that looked like a 
response at all was that UD said there was a workaround, "just add gcc 
flag". Just from the non-friendly tone I would expect this to be a half 
lie - half true.

What did he mean and why does it not work as you would like it to?