Bug 359799 – crash in Evolution: Deleting a folder in my ...

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 359799 - crash in Evolution: Deleting a folder in my ...


Summary:	crash in Evolution: Deleting a folder in my ...


Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 359801

Product:	evolution
Classification:	Applications
Component:	general
Version:	2.8.x (obsolete)
Hardware:	Other All

Importance:	High critical
Target Milestone:	---
Assigned To:	Evolution Shell Maintainers Team
QA Contact:	Evolution QA team

URL:
Whiteboard:

Depends on:
Blocks:

Reported:	2006-10-05 06:45 UTC by matt
Modified:	2006-10-06 02:44 UTC

See Also:
GNOME target:	---
GNOME version:	2.15/2.16

Description matt 2006-10-05 06:45:01 UTC

What were you doing when the application crashed?
Deleting a folder in my IMAP mail account.  It said it could not delete the folder, however Evolution removed the folder from the list and kept the folder contents in the main view.  I changed to another folder, then it crashed.


Distribution: Ubuntu 6.10 (edgy)
Gnome Release: 2.16.1 2006-10-02 (Ubuntu)
BugBuddy Version: 2.16.0

Memory status: size: 47378432 vsize: 0 resident: 199274496 share: 0 rss: 199274496 rss_rlim: 0
CPU usage: start_time: 1524 rtime: 0 utime: 1160029735 stime: 0 cutime:6407 cstime: 0 timeout: 6206 it_real_value: 0 frequency: 201

Backtrace was generated from '/usr/bin/evolution-2.8'

(no debugging symbols found)
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/libthread_db.so.1".
(no debugging symbols found)
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread 805931280 (LWP 5913)]
[New Thread 978973936 (LWP 5991)]
[New Thread 878310640 (LWP 5941)]
[New Thread 877655280 (LWP 5930)]
[New Thread 867357936 (LWP 5927)]
[New Thread 858969328 (LWP 5925)]
[New Thread 840967408 (LWP 5924)]
[New Thread 832181488 (LWP 5921)]
[New Thread 823788784 (LWP 5919)]
0x0e619220 in __waitpid_nocancel () from /lib/libc.so.6

+ Trace 74624

Thread 9 (Thread 823788784 (LWP 5919))

#0 ___newselect_nocancel
from /lib/libc.so.6
#1 e_msgport_wait
from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
#2 e_msgport_reply
from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
#3 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0
#4 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0

Thread 8 (Thread 832181488 (LWP 5921))

#0 ___newselect_nocancel
from /lib/libc.so.6
#1 e_msgport_wait
from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
#2 e_msgport_reply
from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
#3 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0
#4 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0

Thread 7 (Thread 840967408 (LWP 5924))

#0 __lll_lock_wait
from /lib/libpthread.so.0
#1 pthread_mutex_lock
from /lib/libpthread.so.0
#2 pthread_mutex_lock
at forward.c line 181
#3 main

Thread 6 (Thread 858969328 (LWP 5925))

#0 ___newselect_nocancel
from /lib/libc.so.6
#1 e_msgport_wait
from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
#2 e_msgport_reply
from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
#3 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0
#4 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0

Thread 5 (Thread 867357936 (LWP 5927))

#0 ___newselect_nocancel
from /lib/libc.so.6
#1 e_msgport_wait
from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
#2 e_msgport_reply
from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
#3 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0
#4 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0

Thread 4 (Thread 877655280 (LWP 5930))

#0 ___newselect_nocancel
from /lib/libc.so.6
#1 e_msgport_wait
from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
#2 e_msgport_reply
from /usr/lib/libedataserver-1.2.so.7
#3 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0
#4 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0

Comment 1 Elijah Newren 2006-10-05 10:44:03 UTC

Thanks for the bug report. Unfortunately, that stack trace is not very useful in determining the cause of the crash. Can you get us one with debugging symbols? Please see http://live.gnome.org/GettingTraces for more information on how to do so.

Comment 2 matt 2006-10-06 02:43:26 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 359801 ***

Comment 3 matt 2006-10-06 02:44:37 UTC

Sorry I believe the problem I was experiencing in this report is now due to what I found in bug #359801