[Crash-utility] [PATCH] Improve error handling when architecture doesn't match

[Dave Anderson]

Bernhard Walle wrote:
> * Dave Anderson <anderson at redhat.com> [2007-12-21 15:25]:
> 
>>Bernhard Walle wrote:
>>
>>>* Dave Anderson <anderson at 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?
> 
> 
> Well, it is, but not 0x??04 but 0x04??. But of course, it's also
> possible to check the byte-toggled value. I'll send a new patch.

Won't that also affect the e_machine, e_version, e_phnum fields
as well?

Dave