On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:13 PM, Herbert Mühlburger wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Am 02.12.13 18:18, schrieb John Ralls:
>> At this point I think you should open a bug report.
>
> I created the bug https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=719726
> regarding this i
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Am 02.12.13 18:18, schrieb John Ralls:
> At this point I think you should open a bug report.
I created the bug https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=719726
regarding this issue. Do you have any idea where the problem could be?
Kind regards,
He
On Dec 2, 2013, at 8:47 AM, Herbert Mühlburger wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> Am 02.12.13 16:55, schrieb John Ralls:
>>
>>> That's a very strange crash.
>>
>>> I don't see it, but I'm got other weird behavior, where none of
>>> the GUI buttons, checkboxes, or G
Christian,
On Sun, Mar 25, 2012 at 12:15 PM, Christian Stimming
wrote:
> Am Samstag, 24. März 2012, 17:38:31 schrieb Alex Aycinena:
>> Christian,
>>
>> I built a clean copy of trunk on r22118 and got a seg fault on start
>> up as follows:
>>
>> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
Am Samstag, 24. März 2012, 17:38:31 schrieb Alex Aycinena:
> Christian,
>
> I built a clean copy of trunk on r22118 and got a seg fault on start
> up as follows:
>
> Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
> 0x7792b31c in gnc_split_register_load (reg=0x7f2980, slist=
> 0x
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 07:42:31AM +0200, Sebastian Held wrote:
> Without synchronized debug information, it's hopeless to find the bug.
> The next step you can take is to set a breakpoint at table-gnome.c:189 and
> step the program until the error occurs.
> Ah - stop it. The one-liner for enablin
On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 10:26:44AM +0200, Sebastian Held wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 22 April 2009 09:53:21 schrieb Dave Hardman:
> > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 07:42:31AM +0200, Sebastian Held wrote:
> > > Without synchronized debug information, it's hopeless to find the bug.
> > > The next step you can tak
Am Mittwoch 22 April 2009 09:53:21 schrieb Dave Hardman:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 07:42:31AM +0200, Sebastian Held wrote:
> > Without synchronized debug information, it's hopeless to find the bug.
> > The next step you can take is to set a breakpoint at table-gnome.c:189
> > and step the program u
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
Am Wednesday 22 April 2009 06:11:34 schrieben Sie:
>On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 01:56:44PM +0200, Sebastian Held wrote:
>> >Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
>> >[Switching
>Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.
>[Switching to Thread 0x808102180 (LWP 100227)]
>gnucash_sheet_styles_set_dimensions (sheet=0x80bd340c0, default_width=680)
>at gnucash-style.c:177
>177gnucash-style.c: No such file or directory.
> in gnucash-style.c
Function gnuc
Am Dienstag 14 April 2009 09:29:25 schrieb Dave Hardman:
> I updated the ports (on freebsd 7.1 amd64) and gnucash-2.2.7 was
> recompiled since there was a later version of one or more of its
> dependencies. Over 400 ports were recompiled.
>
> Gnucash now loads the file, if file previous
David Hampton wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 22:43 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote:
Josh Sled wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 20:28 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote:
Funny enough, Mark's message was delivered (to me, anyways) about 30
seconds after we started talking about it on
On Fri, 2006-02-24 at 22:43 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote:
> Josh Sled wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 20:28 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote:
> >
> > Funny enough, Mark's message was delivered (to me, anyways) about 30
> > seconds after we started talking about it on IRC. Chris reports -- and
> > I can
Josh Sled wrote:
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 20:28 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote:
With gnucash svn 13366, I am getting a segmentation fault for the
command line:
$ gnucash --nofile
This is repeatable. I was trying this because it was crashing when I
tried File->New->new file with a file
On Thu, 2006-02-23 at 20:28 -0700, Mark Johnson wrote:
> With gnucash svn 13366, I am getting a segmentation fault for the
> command line:
> $ gnucash --nofile
>
> This is repeatable. I was trying this because it was crashing when I
> tried File->New->new file with a file open. That crash was
It was me. I don't know quite what did it. But I wiped out both the
source and install directories, checked out r12027, and it builds and
runs.
Time to go figure how I twisted it...
Dave
On Nov 23, 2005, at 7:29 PM, David Reiser wrote:
r12021 and at least a couple earlier give me a segmenta
Quoting Matthew Vanecek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I'm kinda skeptical about using the contents of a freed Split to see if
> the Split has been freed, though. What if something else has
> overwritten the freed memory? Why is that particular pointer guaranteed
> to still be == (char *)1 if the split
Quoting Thomas Bushnell BSG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > And yes, this code has been there a long time, in order to detect a
> > double-free.
>
> That's a bug then; you can't access freed memory, period.
Well, yes and no...
> Indeed, it is fair game
On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 21:09 -0600, Matthew Vanecek wrote:
> On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 11:37 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> > Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snip]
> It's faulting on my P3 nowadays for some reason. I wasn't sure if it
> was a glibc thing or what. Quite annoying. I w
Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> And yes, this code has been there a long time, in order to detect a
> double-free.
That's a bug then; you can't access freed memory, period.
Indeed, it is fair game for an attempted read out of freed memory to
fault; it's been freed, you can't read
On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 11:37 -0800, Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I see nothing wrong with this code. It should be perfectly legal to
> > set an invalid pointer like this. Unless you are specifically doing
> > bounds-checking on pointer-sets I can't s
Derek Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I see nothing wrong with this code. It should be perfectly legal to
> set an invalid pointer like this. Unless you are specifically doing
> bounds-checking on pointer-sets I can't see how setting a pointer
> would cause a SEGV. You're not ACCESSING the
I see nothing wrong with this code. It should be perfectly legal to
set an invalid pointer like this. Unless you are specifically doing
bounds-checking on pointer-sets I can't see how setting a pointer
would cause a SEGV. You're not ACCESSING the memory then, you're only
setting the pointer. It
23 matches
Mail list logo
