At 06:26 PM 2/19/2003, Allan Edwards wrote: >>>I think having the .dbg symbols should be quite enough for a normal >>>httpd installation, so I think fixing the timestamp problem isn't that >>>important for 0.9.2/2.0.45. > >As I said to Bill in another note, the timestamp difference does not >seem to cause any problems for me. Using windbg to examine a user.dmp I can >point it to the pdb files & source tree, and display the stack trace and >variables with no problem.
Right, it's not the timestamp. I suspect the internal stamp and '.dbg' notation that my rebase is adding to the binaries (if you look from within depends.exe, you will see Apache/APR binaries tagged as .dbg symbols, an artifact of the rebase -x operation.) I'm seeing the 'M' status code for mismatches within WinDbg itself, using the list modules command. >>One point I meant to make... can we make the .dbg simplified symbols >>-p(rivate) such that they are even smaller? With the full blown .pdb's >>available to all who are interested, I don't see that as a shortcoming. >+1 > >>>If we can really do without the map files >>>once the .dbg's are available, then I see nothing wrong with killing them. >+1 Since Brane already spoke up, I'll do these two changes in the morning. No, the pdb/dbg issue isn't holding up this release, we can all manage just fine with a few stumbling blocks. I'm the only one who held on to the .map files, and while they me helped several times narrow down a segv, I never once got a request for the .map's corresponding to a release. Bill
