Re: [Crash-utility] [PATCH] Improve error handling when architecture doesn't match
Bernhard Walle wrote:
* Dave Anderson <anderson(a)redhat.com> [2007-12-21 15:00]:
>I like the addition of the machine-type verification error message.
>
>But why bother with the endian check? Using your ppc64/x86_64
>example, an architecture check/error message would make far
>more sense. The "endianness" error message implies that if
>they re-compiled their ppc64 kernel little-endian that things
>would work.
I added it because if the dump is BE (like PPC64) then the
elf64->e_type == ET_CORE check (also with ELF32) is always false and
the code never got into the switch that checks the machine type.
I don't follow -- the e_type is not ET_CORE?
Dave