Hello, * Dave Anderson <anderson@xxxxxxxxxx> [2007-01-18 15:22]: > Ok then, I trust your "equivalency" explanation, and since in all > probability the code path won't be hit, it should be safe. > In fact, I don't believe that any of the other patches that you > sent will ever be exercised by crash either? I didn't check it. I just fixed compiler warnings. > But, if they make your compiler happy, that's fine with me... It's your compiler, too. :) Yes, maybe you use another $RPM_OPT_FLAGS as we do ... > And given that the gdb module is only utilized as "gdb vmlinux", as > long as gdb-6.1 is capable of returning structure sizes, member offsets, > code disassembly, etc., then there's no compelling need to upgrade it. > And if there are, the first line of defense would be to patch the current > version than make a wholesale upgrade. Sounds reasonable. Regards, Bernhard
Attachment:
pgpsWIhKvAuRg.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
