* Dave Anderson <anderson@xxxxxxxxxx> [2008-05-14 11:51]: > Bernhard Walle wrote: > > > > * Dave Anderson [2008-05-14 11:11]: > >> I suppose we could go with 5 instead of 4, and have dump_trace() > >> skip the first one, presuming that this anomoly is not architecture- > >> or compiler-dependent. Or maybe make it macro? > > > > Did you compile with some optimisation? I think I remember that gcc > > only inlines code with optimisation turned on. > > > > No -- the Makefile is used as is -- you're the one modifying things... ;-) You distribute crash without optimisations in Fedora/RHEL? Well, our build system complains in that case. :-| Bernhard
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Crash-utility mailing list Crash-utility@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/crash-utility
