On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 07:36:00PM -0700, David O'Brien wrote: > Do you understand the fix? How does lying in printheader() fix anything? > Moving the call to getbounds() back to the original location is the "fix" > but then it negates -vv. We shouldn't lie in printheader(). The problem is of course that getbounds() not only gets the count from the bounds file but also increments it. The decision to write a core hasn't been made at the time printheader is called for -vv. Thus the reported bounds might not correspond to a core. The newly added dump status is also meaningless in the -vv case, since the status may still be determined after the -vv printheader. How about just not showing the bounds for the -vv case? -- Ed Maste, Sandvine IncorporatedReceived on Wed Jun 15 2005 - 01:37:51 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:36 UTC