https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1689037
--- Comment #27 from Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> ---
Yeah, it's the same code, which is why I got to thinking the *things it's
working with* may be different, i.e. scoping. But it's only an idea.
So, I tried doing a build of 2.5.3 with a patch that basically 'reverts' e4f27f
by moving the struct definition back inline...and it hits the bug. So now I'm
just entirely baffled, and I've spent the whole day on this. Fun!
I'm going to re-do the tests of bee93e26 and e4f27f by hand just in case my
test script somehow screwed up...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.