From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1251 invoked by alias); 12 Oct 2006 05:52:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 1242 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Oct 2006 05:52:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:52:35 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4EBBA48CC05; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 02347-01-2; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0769748CE40; Thu, 12 Oct 2006 01:52:33 -0400 (EDT) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 507) id 9EE4347F00; Wed, 11 Oct 2006 22:52:31 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 05:52:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Clarify shared library warning Message-ID: <20061012055231.GG1059@adacore.com> References: <20061010145213.GA20993@nevyn.them.org> <20061010213438.GC1059@adacore.com> <20061011133756.GB25164@nevyn.them.org> <9704.82.92.89.47.1160598745.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl> <20061011203928.GA9409@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00135.txt.bz2 > This doesn't mention the problem with the library version, which to me > is a very important clue. I think version mismatch is a much more > likely problem than a library mismatch. But two libraries with the exact same version number may not necessarily be the same. The last time I've had this problem was a few weeks ago when a customer of ours sent us a core file. Same system version number (HP/UX), same shared library version number, and yet different code. That's why I think it's important to say "wrong shared library". I actually read "version" in the original proposal as "instance" more than "number". Isn't that interesting? In any case, I agree with Mark that an addition to the manual is more important than trying to cover every possible sources for this discrepency in a highly skilfully crafted short message. I am very happy with the warning, no matter how it tries to say it. -- Joel