From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.bugs
Subject: Re: unexelf.c maybe broke between 21.1 and 21.2
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:33:14 -0400
Sender: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org
Message-ID: <E17kCJG-0000z9-00@fencepost.gnu.org>
References: <200208281347.NAA06330@amber2.ccur.com>
Reply-To: rms@gnu.org
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org
X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1030578678 22291 127.0.0.1 (28 Aug 2002 23:51:18 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 23:51:18 +0000 (UTC)
Cc: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
Return-path: <bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org>
Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173])
	by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
	id 17kCaf-0005mp-00
	for <gnu-bug-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org>; Thu, 29 Aug 2002 01:51:13 +0200
Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 17kCc3-0002cx-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:52:39 -0400
Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10)
	id 17kCJN-0000vX-00
	for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:33:21 -0400
Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10)
	id 17kCJH-0000uo-00
	for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:33:16 -0400
Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10)
	id 17kCJH-0000uj-00
	for bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:33:15 -0400
Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10)
	id 17kCJG-0000z9-00; Wed, 28 Aug 2002 19:33:14 -0400
Original-To: Tom.Horsley@mail.ccur.com
In-Reply-To: <200208281347.NAA06330@amber2.ccur.com> (message from Tom Horsley
	on Wed, 28 Aug 2002 13:47:13 GMT)
Errors-To: bug-gnu-emacs-admin@gnu.org
X-BeenThere: bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:bug-gnu-emacs@gnu.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-emacs>,
	<mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: Bug reports for GNU Emacs,
	the Swiss army knife of text editors <bug-gnu-emacs.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnu-emacs>,
	<mailto:bug-gnu-emacs-request@gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.gnu.org/pipermail/bug-gnu-emacs/>
Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.bugs:3345
X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.bugs:3345

    Unfortunately, when I compare the old and new code, I see no obvious reason
    for it to act any differently,

When you can't tell by reading the code why it fails,
the only thing left is to debug it with a debugger.
If you can debug what the two versions of unexec actually do
differently, you could perhaps fix it.

You could also see how the executable files differ.