[Crash-utility] Crash-utility Digest, Vol 179, Issue 4

[HAGIO KAZUHITO(萩尾 一仁)]

-----Original Message-----
> >> In addition, might it be more reasonable to issue a warning instead of a fatal error?
> >
> > hmm, why do you think so?  I think FATAL is fine because we cannot proceed
> > anymore and there is no memory to be released.
> >
> When users are trying to use the some commands in crash, crash should give a warning to users if
> it doesn't support the command yet, but users can still use other commands, the fatal error means
> that it can not continue to do anythings.
> 
> Anyway, I have no preference about this. The more important thing is that I didn't reproduce the
> problem that David mentioned(after applied the above patch). Maybe David could help me give more
> details.

ok, I've thought we usually use "WARNING" when it can or have to continue
to do something, but there looks to be no strict rule in crash source.

Thanks,
Kazu