On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 16:32:56 -0700, Jos Backus <jos_at_catnook.com> wrote: > On Sat, Oct 04, 2008 at 05:49:06PM -0700, Tim Kientzle wrote: >> First, you need to share the first items in the >> backtrace, as they're more likely to be correct. >> I agree with Andrey that it looks like there's >> some stack corruption, so it's hard to trust >> anything except the first couple of entries. > > Attached is a tarball containing firefox3.gdb which has the full > output of `bt'. Unfortunately it doesn't tell me very much more. Unfortunately, tarballs are stripped off by the list software. Can you upload this online somewhere and point us to a URL? If the backtrace is not exceedingly large, you could also include it _inline_ in a message. >> You should also look at several independent core >> dumps and see how much the backtraces have in common. > > I watched it crash a bunch more times and the backtraces are the > same. That's good, right? :-) In a way :) It means that there is a semi-predictable bug that can be reproduced in a sufficiently `repeatable' manner. That's good, I guess.Received on Sun Oct 05 2008 - 21:57:59 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:36 UTC