>> 	Ok, I didn't know this. Does this work with KGDB? (and, for that
>> matter, is it just me, or is KGDB not really in the i386 port?)
>
>As far as I know, there's no "really" about it.  KGDB is not in the
>i386 port.  8-)

	Well, there's bits and pieces in the machine independent part,
but yes, most of it is notably absent.

>KGDB needs the symbol table on the system where KGDB is being run.
>Since DDB is a "single-system, on-console" debugger, it needs the
>symbols loaded in core, so that it can always get to them.
>
>They're ... completely seperate.

	Understood, but for my purposes, KGDB does a far superior job
to DDB. It's a bummer that it's not in the i386 port. Has any thought
gone into changing that? (i.e., was it ripped out, or just nobody
bothered because DDB was considered a better use of effort?)

							-Craig