This is the mail archive of the cygwin@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

RE: Mysterious gdb behavior


Oh man, I know *way* better than to get involved here (especially after reading
the *HILARIOUS* FAQ and his nutty web page, you guys, seriously, check them
out), but what the hell:

>
> On 2 Aug 2002 at 10:55, Igor Pechtchanski wrote:
>
> > Secondly, the post started with "I hope you don't take it as an
> > insult, as it wasn't intended to be", which you obviously
> > overlooked.
>
> Perhaps it was insulting even though it wasn't intended to be?

Or did he really intend it to be, and is simply lying about *not* intending it
to be?  Or is that what he *wants* you to think?

> In any
> case, if I responded as though to an insult, you can trust that there
> was something in there that would, whether that was the intent or
> not, leave a negative belief about me floating around if not
> countered.
>

Paul buddy, this is some serious stuff here: If you've got negative beliefs
floating all around you, the *only* way you can protect yourself from them is to
wrap your head in aluminum foil.  Not the cheap crap either - you need the
heavier stuff like for lining charcoal grills, or else those negative thoughts,
or "vibes" as they're more commonly known, will float right into your cerebellum
and control even your bodily functions.  And for God's sake stay absolutely
still - they can only sense motion, so if you don't move they won't be able to
track you.

> > Non-experts can and will answer posts.  Anyone can offer a guess at what's
> > happening if your symptoms sound similar to what they've experienced.
> > This does not make them experts.
>
> Nor does it offend me as long as they make clear that they are
> unsure.
>

I'd guess what's happening is that you're in your early forties and still live
with your parent(s), you bear a striking physical resemblance to the comic book
guy on "The Simpsons", have never held meaningful employment, and you're a
Perpetual Student who has switched majors no less than six times and will die of
old age in a lecture for the Psych 101 class that you're auditing for the
sixtieth time on the folks' dime.  But I am completely unsure of all that, so I
know you won't take offense.  I certainly meant none.  Just guessing.

> > No, what I meant was that the question will be answered by experts and
> > non-experts alike.  Your expectation that any answer will be from an
> > expert is erroneous, and has to be corrected.
>
> Don't call me erroneous.

Can we call you "Glitch"?  I still like Kim's "Tard" the best though.
Heehehheheheee!  Classic.

> This is what I mean about insults. Talking
> to me as though I were a wayward child in need of correction is rude.

You are a wayward manchild in need of correction.  How else should one talk to
you?

> Doing so in public is also humiliating.

You need public humiliation.  How else are you going to learn?

> That is both rude and utterly
> inexcusable, and forces me to respond to correct the poor impression
> of me that it attempts to propagate.

And you damn sure don't need any help propagating a poor impression of yourself,
do you Paul?

> That, in turn, wastes bandwidth.
> If you feel the need to talk down to me DO IT IN PRIVATE EMAIL!
>

No, it's WAY more fun to do it in public, where we can all enjoy it!  But fear
not, if you haven't been killfiled from the list already, you will be posthaste,
and never have to suffer the insult of having somebody try to help you out ever
again.

> Anyway, I didn't expect that any answer would be from an expert. I
> expected that any answer would contain at least some attempt at
> actual help, and not just a uselessly vague remark and a batch of
> unwelcome insults!

"Whosoever smelteth it, dealteth it" - I Kings 2:11

> In any other time and place than the apparently
> peculiar political climate of this list, any answer *would* be an
> honest attempt at help -- i.e. not insulting, not even worded in a
> way prone to being interpreted as insulting, and not pointlessly
> vague or content-free.

In any other time and place, you'd probably be running from a mob armed with
torches and pitchforks by now.

> IIRC, this branch has erupted from my
> objecting to getting responses like "edit /etc/passwd, you idiot"
> (paraphrasing -- the "you idiot" was actually a long diatribe that
> implied rather than explicitly stated the insulting payload)

Oh, well then let me speak for the body, if I may, and make that "implication"
explicit:

YOU ARE AN IDIOT.

You're also clearly a freak, get the hell away from me.  (Heheheyeah, like you
haven't heard THAT one before!!!)

> that
> offer no real information. (The tempting reply is "Of course you edit
> /etc/passwd, you asshole, but *what change do you make, and what
> other changes elsewhere, and what else should I look out for,
> especially given that Cygwin usernames and Winblows usernames
> interact, dammit???* -- my actual reply was far more civil if you
> check the archives or were here to read it at the time.)
>

Yeah, it was "I'm sure that won't work!  Stop insulting me!  WAAAAAAAAAAA!!!".
Quite a bit more civil.

"Winblows"?  Wow, you're right there on the cutting edge of anti-Micro$oft
wordsmithing, aren't you Paul?  (And before you ask, yes, you can use the
"Micro$oft" thing, just be sure to give me credit for coming up with that
doozie!)

> > I don't see how asking, for example, for the output of cygcheck is
> > patronising or content-free.
>
> That one was neither. What it was was still vague enough to require
> me to come back to the list with yet another question. Telling me to
> use foo program that a) isn't obviously already around, like regedit
> or grep, and b) I don't recall seeing listed as a package in setup,
> without providing a) a URL or b) its source code or telling me that
> c) it was probably installed with this package or can be had by using
> setup to install that package, leaves me with incomplete information.
>

I notice that you've FINALLY found the mysterious cygcheck "program" (whatever
that is).  I believe congratulations are in order.  Unfortunately we're all out
of congratulations at the moment, but we've got them backordered and I'll have
somebody give you a call when they come in.

You know, for a sad sack that seems to have no problem typing for hours on end,
you'd think you'd know how to run a program from a command prompt.  Even a Unix
one.  I mean even by random chance, with the way you hammer those keys, you'd
statistically *have* to end up accidentally launching bash and typing at least
"cygcheck", wouldn't you?  I'll run the numbers through Excel and get back to
you.

> Also, my response to that one was perfectly civil. Someone mentions
> cygcheck. I don't know what this is or where to obtain it, if I don't
> already have it. So I ask the obvious question. Unfortunately, nobody
> here likes being asked questions -- rather peculiar for a list whose
> expected use includes this sort of Q&A...
>

1. "nobody here likes being asked questions".  I like being asked questions.
You just insulted me.  Expect reams of rambling crap to be posted to this forum
defending my honor or some other damn fool BS like that.  Just as soon as I
graduate and move out of momma's house.
2. "nobody here likes being asked questions".  I have to partially agree; there
are some here that seem to give that impression on more occaisions than seems
warranted.  However, now is most assuredly not one of those occaisions.
3. You are such an insufferable kook that nobody can help you even if they
wanted to, which by now even the most helpful people here have no interest in
doing.

> > While you can't be expected to *memorize* the
> > documentation, you can be expected to search it for things that everyone
> > using Cygwin (or at least reporting a bug) should know.
>
> What is the boundary of what "everyone using Cygwin should know"?

If I told you that, I'd have to insult you.

> If
> I don't search for something, rest assured that I have every reason
> to believe it's not going to be found.

Translation: "Rest assured that I am one of the wildest-eyed kooks you'll ever
run across.  I'M KING OF THE KOOKS!  YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!"

> I might not know that
> "everyone using Cygwin should know" foo.

Don't contradict yourself in public.

> I figure two things:

Oh man this ought to be good.

> * The FAQ will contain information about Cygwin's operation in
>   general. It won't contain package-specific information. Not
>   everyone installs gdb -- therefore it's doubtful that the FAQ will
>   contain this specific gdb error, and so searching it is probably a
>   waste of time -- don't bother.

* You're too stupid and too far gone to be helped -- don't bother.

> * The documentation for a specific package will contain information
>   on that.

* But it won't because I have every reason to believe it won't -- don't bother.

> You'll note that my original Mysterious gdb behavior posting notes
> that I searched gdb's documentation for the error number that was
> reported and found nothing.
>

And then you got a number of suggestions of stuff to try and you tried nothing.
Then started bitching that people were trying to help you.  What results were
you expecting, magic hands to come out of the screen and fix things for you?
Then you'd be crying about *that* being an "insult"!

> > Since what you were doing was, in all appearance, reporting a bug,
> > you should have followed the link at the bottom of every message
> > (the one with "bug reporting" in front of it) and read the *whole*
> > document.
>
> I should have done nothing of the kind. At that point I had every
> reason to suspect some goof or misconfiguration rather than a bug.
> Therefore my post to the list was geared toward identifying the
> misconfiguration. Of course I did regard the obscure error reporting
> as tantamount to a bug, and the silent failure if the console wasn;t
> displayed as a definite bug, but I figured to eventually track down a
> bug reporting address for gdb and report those there. These were
> clearly issues with gdb in general, not Cygwin-specific, and also
> tangential to the primary problem which was to find out why it
> encountered an error trying to debug that executable -- an error I
> considered likely to result from a misconfiguration rather than a
> bug.
>

Excerpted from transcripts of "STATE OF KOOKLAHOMA v. Paul":

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: "Indeed, a "goof or misconfiguration"?  From the very
start, you assumed the problem was caused by some "goof or misconfiguration",
Mr. Derbyshire?  Now, according to your earlier testimony, you were in fact
insulted by the very idea that the problem could have been due to something you
had done, isn't that correct, Mr. Derbyshire?  But now you are admitting, not
once but twice, that your very first thought was that you suspected a "goof or
misconfiguration".  A "goof or misconfiguration" that would have to have been...
YOUR FAULT!  THE ENTIRE "CASE OF THE INSULTING GDB CATASTROPHE" IS YOUR FAULT
AND YOUR FAULT ALONE, ISN'T IT MR. DERBYSHIRE?!!?  ISN'T IT?!?!  DON'T WAIT FOR
THE TRANSLATION, ANSWER THE QUESTION!!!!!"

PAUL: "No... it... it wasn't like that... I... <sob>... STOP INSULTING ME!"

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY: "No further questions, Your Honor."

> > You would have seen the exact command line for cygcheck.
>
> And information about where cygcheck can be found, or stating that it
> should be already installed, or whatever?
>
> Anyway, it's starting to sound like either:
> * Everyone should read that file whether or not they believe what
>   they're reporting is a genuine bug, or

If I haven't already read something, rest assured that I have every reason to
believe that it's not worth reading.

> * Some of what's in that file belongs in the FAQ.
>

I figure one thing: The FAQ will contain only information relating to Cygwin's
operation in general, not information relating to bugs in Cygwin.  Ergo, I will
be deep in the cold, cold ground before I spend milliseconds clicking on a link
only to find a bunch of information that I'll have to read in order to
subsequently ignore.

> > If you've tried that, you would have found that cygcheck is
> > included with your system.
>
> I have found that out, recently. Funny this wasn't mentioned anywhere
> obvious. (And no, the bugs page you've referenced isn't somewhere
> obvious when one is not yet sure there's a genuine bug involved.)
>

Right, that was admittedly a bit confusing.  The bugs page is in the FAQ now,
which we've incidentally renamed the "Bugs Page".  And it's now in an
undisclosed location, to protect it from further imaginary insults.

> > > Let's clarify a bit. Suggestions too vague to produce anything but a
> > > reply asking the suggester to be more specific are *not* helpful.
> >
> > Questions saying "there's something wrong with my cygwin, fix it" are
> > *not* helpful.
>
> Straw man. Questions saying "gdb refuses to run <foo executable here>
> and says <specific error message>; I searched the documentation for
> this error message and found nothing" are perfectly fine. The only
> thing I could see adding in this instance being the version number.
>

No, that's not perfectly fine.  If you're a nutcase, you must also include a
disclaimer indicating so:

"WARNING: Do not respond to this post unless you want to be drawn into the
twisted world of one individual's madness, where assistance is insult, answer
preceeds question, and nothing is as it seems."

> > When you've programmed a large set of big projects, you won't remember
> > your own source code.  Your reply most of the time would be "I don't
> > remember, I have to look at the code".  Since you're probably busy at the
> > time with something else, and since someone has to look at the code
> > anyway, why not the questioner?  This is not a punishment, this is an
> > attempt to have you recover as much info as possible.
>
> Reasons:
> 1. The questioner doesn't have the familiarity with the source code
>    that the maintainer/some other expert does. The maintainer can
>    zero in on the relevant section in seconds; the questioner
>    probably would need hours just to isolate the correct source
>    *file* to investigate more closely. Thus, the questioner is being
>    asked to do a large amount of work to save someone else a small
>    amount of work. Hardly what I'd call efficient use of man/hours.

But this is.  Wow.

> 2. In connection with #1, a quick result might be crucial. The
>    problem, whatever it is, may be causing a work stoppage that is
>    costing someone money.

You're paying how much for support?  Oh, nothing?  Then it seems to me that your
sobbing about "work stoppage" and $1 still won't get you a cup of coffee at
Starbucks.

> 3. In the case of Cygwin, someone might not *have* the source,

Of course they won't!  Why, how in the world could they ever figure out how to
even get it solely by whining?!?!  Where do I get a WTP (Whine Transfer
Protocol) client?!?!  Nobody in here's gonna help, that's for sure <sob>!  STOP
INSULTING ME!

> and
>    the download would take an obnoxious amount of time, and they may
>    also be pressed for disk space.

They might have a concussion and be unable to even type or use a mouse!  They
might have nothing but sassmouth for those trying to help them!  Why, they might
even be creepy Perpetual Students!  Who knows!?!?

> Undoubtedly I could add many more plausible reasons to the above;

I challenge you to produce a single one.

> in
> my case #1 definitely applies.
>

Nobody cares.

> There's also this: If someone felt competent to, and felt they had
> the time to, solve it themselves, they wouldn't post to the list.

Not in the way you do, no.  I suspect they'd want some chance of getting an
answer to their question.

> If
> someone posts to the list it strongly implies that it's beyond their
> expertise or time constraints to DIY.

If someone posts to the list the way you have it implies that they have a
personality disorder.  But I'm just an armchair psychologist (or is it
psychiatrist? I forget.); you'll need a proper examination by a board of
licensed professionals for a diagnosis.

> And that in turn means a
> response telling them to DIY is a priori unlikely to be other than a
> waste of bandwidth.
>

Pfhht, bandwidth's cheap.  Especially when it's on the folk's dime, huh Paul?

> > Noone expects you to memorize the FAQ.
>
> Someone implied I should have done so. Not you, presumably.
>

Nobody has implied any such thing.  Are you sure got the *thick* foil like I
told you to?  Not the stuff marked "Heavy Duty", I mean the real McCoy.  Those
negative "vibes" don't mess around, we need to be talking industrial strength
here.

> > Whenever you encounter an unfamiliar concept, though, the first
> > thing you should do is search the FAQ *AGAIN*...
>
> Which unfamiliar concepts? Surely not all of them? Unfamiliar stuff
> is mentioned all the time in any technical forum. Nobody with merely
> human attention span and stamina can follow the latest jargon and
> lingo for every computer-related field simultaneously. I know C and
> compilers and have dabbled in Java; data structures and algorithms
> are second nature to me; but start talking to me about database query
> languages or LAN administration and I'd be reaching for that FAQ
> every third word. It could quickly grow to consume a huge amount of
> time.
>
> Of course, because the FAQ is apparently updated frequently, forget
> using a local copy. I'd have to go open a Web browser, wait the half
> a minute or so for it to crank itself laboriously into a working
> state, go to the FAQ URL (after first finding it again with a search -
> - I don't recall it offhand), edit/find some text, ...
> Doing this once might be a five minute job. Doing it before pretty
> much every posting to the list would consume hours out of every day.
> It wouldn't be a problem if I were posting only the odd question, but
> because five or six people feel the need to harass me and attempt to
> tar me with various unpleasant brushes in followups to each and every
> post I make, and each of these in turn requires a rebuttal or other
> defense, this would turn into a time-wasting nightmare even worse
> than it already is.
>

<shrill grinding noise>

Me (in bad Scottish accent): "ABANDON SHIP!  THE DI-LAME-EXCUSE-IUM CRYSTALS ARE
OVERLOADING!  SHE CANNA TAKE MUCH MORE!"
Paul: "Abandon... wha?  Naw, to do that I'd have to get out of bed, put on
something to cover my shame, put one foot in front of the oth-"

<KABLAMMO!!!!!!!!!!!>

> > rather than complain to the list -- it'll save everyone (you
> > included) a lot of time and bandwidth.
>
> The only thing I've *complained* about has been uncivil treatment and

Which you have yet to receive.  Sorry son, correcting somebody who needs it
*bad* ain't "uncivil treatment", it's tough love.

NO PAUL THIS IS MY POT-PIE!  THAT'S A BAD PAUL!

> vague or incomplete information. If someone has the time and
> knowledge to post something vague and incomplete they have the time
> and knowledge to post something more specific and useful.

And hence they deserve uncivil treatment.

???

> Uncivil
> treatment lacks any excuse I can conceive.
>

You're able to rationalize it away when you're the one doing it easily enough.
Not sure where the problem is there, maybe that board of professionals I
mentioned above can help there.

> > > Searching (not memorizing!) the FAQ and documentation of course is to
> > > be expected, but such a search has probably already been attempted
> > > and given the user insufficient information by the time the thread
> > > even starts, so suggesting they do it again, when it will just
> > > produce the same results as the first time, is *not* helpful.
> >
> > See above.  The point that you seem to miss is that you are expected to
> > search the FAQ for *different* concepts every time.
>
> Such as? The sequence is this.
> 1. Problem with gdb.
> 2. Search documentation. Fixed or:
> 3. Solve problem on list.
     ^^^^^
     Cause

> The problem solving steps are simple: try to solve it with the
> documentation on hand. If this isn't enough, then switch strategies:
> get the answer off the mailing list. I don't see why the
> documentation should enter into it again.
>
> Of course, we've had exchanges like:
> 1. Problem with gdb.
> 2. Search documentation. Not fixed:
> 3. Ask on list -- reply says we have:
> 4. Problem with spaces in path name.
>

5. Deny that that's the problem.
6. Type and type and type and type and type.
7. Ignore advice given.
8. Accuse advice givers of all sorts of crazy crap.
9. Type some more.
10. Finally find out it was what people had been saying all along.
11. More typing.
12. Soak fingers in ice due to swelling from all that typing.

> I report problem A, someone says it's caused by problem B, and I
> guess now you expect me to research problem B.

If you don't, who will?  I sure ain't - rest assured I know it's unsolvable even
though I don't know what the problem is.

> Doesn't it save a lot
> of time and effort all around if someone simply posts the *solution*
> instead of this indirection that adds to my workload?

What, and miss out on all your great posts?!?  No WAY!  I'm keeping the
*solution* all to my self until I've had my fill of your inspired writing!

> It's no wonder
> I don't want to "hit the books" a second time.

Yeah, I suppose after over thirty years of school one would get weary of all
that book learnin'.

> Once should be enough.
> If my problem isn't in the FAQ, it's time to ask the expert, and
> being referred back to the FAQ feels like going in circles.
>
> Besides, in this instance I didn't need the FAQ. I remembered what it
> said about spaces in path names. It warned that they might cause
> problems, which they apparently do only with gdb among the many
> things I use, and said zip about what to do if they do cause problems
> save the obvious quoting of arguments in scripts and the like, none
> of which suggestions applied in the case of an internal communication
> between one binary (gdb) and another (some Winblows DLL) via an API
> call.
>

Welp, I guess you're SOL then chief.

> > True, should've checked my wording.  However, the facts that would
> > contradict the theories have to come from experiments, done with the
> > specific purpose of contradicting the theory.
>
> I've followed most of the suggested experiments.

What happened, your email go down momentarily?

> (Messing with the
> shell's environment, with the config files, and with changing
> Winblows/cygwin user names has been considered a last resort given
> the risk of breaking something.)
>
> > Theory one is just as easy to verify or disprove - just move *the exact
> > executable* that's giving you problems out of the directory with a space
> > in its name, and try to debug it from there.
>
> This was suggested a while ago, and the result suggests that the
> spacey path names are indeed the problem.
>

WHOAH!  WHERE DID THAT CRAZY NOTION COME FROM?!?!?

Man oh man, what are you gonna be like when you run across a CRLF-only file?!?

> Now can we cut out the verbiage and flames, which have today actually
> gone from smoke to open fire, and actually think about solving it?
>

You've been given the solution and refuse to countenance it.  So start thinkin'.

> > Going back to the scientific method, experiments
> > with too many things varied are worthless, as you don't really know which
> > factor caused the change.
>
> The executables weren't exactly the same, but they were all compiled
> using the same copy of gcc, so I figured they were interchangeable.
>
> > The theory was not at all obvious.  It was a wild guess on his part, a
> > chord struck by something you mentioned in a completely separate thread.
>
> True. (Tries to recall disputing this...hmm, seems I never did.)
>

Hmmm, seems to recall paranoid accusations of "witholding the truth".

> > However, to verify that the gcc and the gdb you're using are both part of
> > cygwin would be common sense and should have been done by you with no
> > "hinting".
>
> That the gcc and gdb I was using were the ones in /usr/bin and not
> ones further down the search path was itself common sense.
>

All the moreso when you stated that you also had djgpp installed.  HUH?!?!?

> > gdb has to read the information about the executable from its header.  If
> > the header is malformed, gdb will fail.  Not as much information is needed
> > to run the executable (e.g., just the starting address), so a malformed
> > header may not affect the execution from the prompt as much as it would
> > affect gdb.
>
> Moot. The same executable has failed in one place and worked in
> another. Anyway, someone had said it was a Windows "bad exe format"
> error -- not a gdb-specific one. Thus an error associated with
> running the binary rather than associated specifically with
> debugging. Also, I'd imagine gdb tries to read the header at launch
> rather than only when you go to "run" the image. It would probably
> fail on startup with a genuinely malformed exectable.
>

'Course it would.  "Imagining" is all we need to solve these sorts of problems.
No need to actually "investigate" or "experiment" or "look at code" or "listen
to what people say" when we can so much more efficiently confabulate!  Glad
you're on the trolley Paul.

> > How many executables did you verify this on?  Did you move an existing
> > (working and debuggable) executable into a directory with a space in it
> > and try to debug it from there?  Did you move a problem executable out of
> > the directory with the space in it and try to debug it from there?  There
> > are too many variables here...
>
> Eventually, yes; see above.
>
> > > And I don't hold it against anyone if they don't. I'm not mad at the
> > > guy who suggested the wrong gcc was being invoked. At least, not for
> > > turning out to be wrong. For beating around the bush for ages
> > > perhaps.
> >
> > Oh, yes, the experts just have to be omniscient and see the correct answer
> > right away...
>
> No! But if you think something is the cause, say so instead of being
> vague! Why is it that people keep misunderstanding what I'm saying?

Because you misunderstand what you're saying.

> The meaning of the English sentences I've used are not in the least
> ambiguous. I keep saying that I am irritated by insults

...where there are no insults...

> or by vague
> answers,

...which you should be ashamed of being "irritated" by even if you'd gotten any,
which you haven't...

> and that nowhere have I been irritated purely because
> someone had no answer or took ages to come up with one. Irritated
> once when someone had no answer but posted, uselessly and in fact
> insultingly, anyway; irritated once when someone took
> ages to post their answer after hinting at it for days; yes, but
> that's different...
>

Of course it's different!  Everything's different in the English towne of
Derbyshire!  Enjoy your stay... but be careful of the spies lurking everywhere.
See that guy over there, he's looking at me.  Spy.  And everybody here has an
angle too - like that guy that knew all along which magic wand to wave to solve
all of my problems, but only hinted at it for days.  Those kinds of imagined
insults irritate me.  Here, take this aluminum foil and wrap it around your
head; that way at least they can't hear your thoughts.

> > > (I haven't heard from them in a while, and I
> > > suppose they did the wise thing and killfiled me.)
>
> Would that this were true. Apparently they were just spending a day
> planning a new onslaught with truly despicable slander tactics.
>

Slander schmander, go pretend to slip on that unsalted sidewalk or something if
you need more dough for your Perpetual Tuition.

> > Paul, don't forget the motto of cygwin developers: "We're just mean".
>
> This justifies what, exactly?

Nothing.  And anyway, we'll soon be changing it to: "You're just nuts".

--
Gary R. Van Sickle
Brewer.  Patriot.


--
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/


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]