[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Bug#246362: gaim segfaults when libc6-i686 is installed



reassign 246362 gaim
thanks

At Fri, 30 Apr 2004 12:27:35 +0100 (WEST),
Rui Tiago Ca-b�o Matos wrote:
> Well, the problem is getting very strange. I've been trying to run gaim
> inside valgrind but it hasn't yet crashed while running with it. But
> everytime i run gaim alone or inside gdb it segfaults for some reason.
> 
> Again here is another backtrace of a segfault:
> 
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> [Switching to Thread 1083186624 (LWP 3920)]
> 0x4068e13c in mallopt () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
> (gdb) bt 
> #0  0x4068e13c in mallopt () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
> #1  0x40513378 in ?? () from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
> #2  0x0837a260 in ?? ()
> #3  0xbfff75f0 in ?? ()
> #4  0x00000018 in ?? ()
> #5  0x40750700 in __after_morecore_hook () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
> #6  0x40750700 in __after_morecore_hook () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
> #7  0x4074fd84 in ?? () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
> #8  0x40750700 in __after_morecore_hook () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
> #9  0x082c2da0 in ?? ()
> #10 0xbfff75e8 in ?? ()
> #11 0x4068cf80 in free () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
> #12 0x40750700 in __after_morecore_hook () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
> #13 0x082c2da0 in ?? ()
> #14 0x40513378 in ?? () from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
> #15 0x083022c8 in ?? ()
> #16 0x08209180 in ?? ()
> #17 0x404d52a2 in g_free () from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
> Previous frame inner to this frame (corrupt stack?)
> (gdb) quit
> 
> When i purge the libc6-i686 package it runs fine.
> 
> Maybe this report should go to gaim maintainers instead?

I didn't have experience to use gaim.  However, I asked some users on
IRC, they said they had no problem.

As we said before, I hardly believe that this is glibc malloc()
problem.  I reassign this bug to gaim.  I guess Gaim maintainer knows
more about gaim incidents.  Gaim maintainer, if you find this is glibc
problem, please re-reassign this bug to glibc.

Regards,
-- gotom



Reply to: