After an evaluation, GNOME has moved from Bugzilla to GitLab. Learn more about GitLab.
No new issues can be reported in GNOME Bugzilla anymore.
To report an issue in a GNOME project, go to GNOME GitLab.
Do not go to GNOME Gitlab for: Bluefish, Doxygen, GnuCash, GStreamer, java-gnome, LDTP, NetworkManager, Tomboy.
Bug 125600 - Scheduled Transaction Editor Crash with Weekly Transaction
Scheduled Transaction Editor Crash with Weekly Transaction
Status: VERIFIED FIXED
Product: GnuCash
Classification: Other
Component: Scheduled Transactions
1.8.x
Other Linux
: High major
: ---
Assigned To: Josh Sled
Josh Sled
: 106212 107006 108886 115905 134433 136397 144399 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2003-10-27 15:04 UTC by Steve Bamber
Modified: 2018-06-29 20:38 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: ---



Description Steve Bamber 2003-10-27 15:04:45 UTC
The Scheduled Transaction Editor crashes consistently when entering a
weekly transaction.

Create New transaction, set frequency to weekly, then every 4 weeks 

Now choosing Monday will crash the application (other days seem to be ok!)

I'm using version 1.8.7 (guile 1.6.4)
Comment 1 Elijah Newren 2003-12-11 17:08:50 UTC
Thanks for the bug report. Without a stack trace from the crash it's
very hard to determine what caused the crash.  Please see
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/getting-traces.cgi for more information
about getting a useful stack trace.

Also, what optimization flags are you compiling with?
Comment 2 Steve Bamber 2003-12-11 17:34:36 UTC
Hi - things have moved on a little, but i'm still getting the same bug.

I'm now running 1.8.8 (from freshrpms.net) on Fedora Core 1, but
trying to create the 4 weekly transaction on a Monday still hangs the
application.

i've attached the stack trace from running gdb on the guile process of
the hung app

Attaching to program: /usr/bin/guile, process 20653

<snip>

(gdb) thread apply all bt
 

Thread 1 (Thread -1084641152 (LWP 20653))

  • #0 _dl_sysinfo_int80
    from /lib/ld-linux.so.2
  • #1 __lll_mutex_lock_wait
    from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
  • #2 __after_morecore_hook
    from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
  • #3 __DTOR_END__
    from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
  • #4 __after_morecore_hook
    from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
  • #5 _L_mutex_lock_9950
    from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
  • #6 ??
  • #7 __DTOR_END__
    from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
  • #8 fork_handler_pool
    from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
  • #9 fork_handler_pool
    from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
  • #10 ??
  • #11 fork
    from /lib/tls/libc.so.6
  • #0 _dl_sysinfo_int80
    from /lib/ld-linux.so.2

Is this any use to you?

Cheers,

Steve
Comment 3 Elijah Newren 2003-12-11 19:04:19 UTC
Unfortunately, no.  I'll reopen and let a maintainer take a look at this.
Comment 4 Josh Sled 2004-02-07 20:31:20 UTC
I can't reproduce.

That stack trace seems to be for the wrong thread, or something.

Does this happen for a specific data file, or can you reproduce on a
new/empty data file?
Comment 5 Steve Bamber 2004-02-08 19:12:00 UTC
Does seem to be related to the data file.

I've just tried in a brand new empty file it goes in ok - i've been
trying to add this scheduled transaction for several months (and
versions!) to my accounts file with no joy. In this time I have
succesfully added (and removed) other scheduled transactions without
problem.

Any idea what the problem could be with the datafile or what I can do
to try to find out?
Comment 6 Josh Sled 2004-02-08 19:25:44 UTC
Yes and no.
I have been able to reproduce since yesterday.

It seems [somewhat] transient.  I can't tell if it's necessarily
data-related [any more so than normal] or runtime related [corrupted
memory/state, &c.]

I'll dig into it in a couple of weeks, but I am able to reproduce locally.
Comment 7 Josh Sled 2004-03-01 13:27:43 UTC
Grr.  I both am- and am-not able to reproduce.  This has got to be
corrupted memory, based both on the intermittent aspect, as well as
the destroyed backtraces I saw when I was able to reproduce.  I'm
going to both automatically and manually aduit memory usage in the
affected code, which is going to take some time.
Comment 8 Josh Sled 2004-03-02 12:48:23 UTC
Steve, it also occurs to me that this might be more reproducible on my
end with your data file ... if you can consistenly reproduce it with
that datafile, then I should be able to do the same, which would help
a lot in tracking the issue down.  Would you be willing to send me
your data file in private correspondance?
Comment 9 Steve Bamber 2004-03-03 11:18:48 UTC
no problem - i'll remove anything that's personal

let me know where you want me to send it to...
Comment 10 Josh Sled 2004-03-03 14:32:02 UTC
Please send to the email address in the "assigned to" field of this bug.

As well, please make sure that you can still reproduce the problem
after modifying the data file -- if you can't, the data file's not useful.
Comment 11 Josh Sled 2004-03-06 22:13:38 UTC
*** Bug 107006 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 12 Josh Sled 2004-03-06 22:15:02 UTC
*** Bug 106212 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 13 Josh Sled 2004-03-06 22:23:42 UTC
*** Bug 115905 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 14 Josh Sled 2004-03-06 22:24:21 UTC
*** Bug 108886 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 15 Josh Sled 2004-03-06 22:50:53 UTC
Found and fixed a stupid memory-corruption issue ... it'll be in CVS
in a while.
Comment 16 Josh Sled 2004-03-06 23:52:41 UTC
*** Bug 134433 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 17 Josh Sled 2004-03-07 13:53:28 UTC
*** Bug 136397 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 18 Josh Sled 2004-03-09 04:25:35 UTC
Fixed in 2004.03.08 commit on 1.8-branch and HEAD.  jsled--.  valgrind++.
Comment 19 Josh Sled 2004-06-15 11:54:45 UTC
*** Bug 144399 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 20 John Ralls 2018-06-29 20:38:23 UTC
GnuCash bug tracking has moved to a new Bugzilla host. This bug has been copied to https://bugs.gnucash.org/show_bug.cgi?id=125600. Please update any external references or bookmarks.