Bug 356510 – crash in Evolution:

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 356510 - crash in Evolution:


Summary:	crash in Evolution:


Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 356323

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

Importance:	High critical
Target Milestone:	---
Assigned To:	Harish Krishnaswamy
QA Contact:	Evolution QA team

URL:
Whiteboard:

Duplicates:	356491 358407 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:

Reported:	2006-09-18 10:18 UTC by Marcel Holtmann
Modified:	2006-10-09 21:42 UTC

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

Description Marcel Holtmann 2006-09-18 10:18:22 UTC

What were you doing when the application crashed?



Distribution: Ubuntu 6.10 (edgy)
Gnome Release: 2.16.0 2006-09-04 (Ubuntu)
BugBuddy Version: 2.16.0

Memory status: size: 444784640 vsize: 444784640 resident: 142258176 share: 24498176 rss: 142258176 rss_rlim: -1
CPU usage: start_time: 1158561946 rtime: 9106 utime: 7802 stime: 1304 cutime:36 cstime: 9 timeout: 0 it_real_value: 0 frequency: 100

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

Using host libthread_db library "/lib/libthread_db.so.1".
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread 47205487876880 (LWP 5645)]
[New Thread 1124362576 (LWP 10364)]
[New Thread 1124096336 (LWP 10362)]
[New Thread 1115703632 (LWP 5654)]
[New Thread 1107310928 (LWP 5653)]
[New Thread 1098918224 (LWP 5650)]
[New Thread 1090525520 (LWP 5648)]
[New Thread 1082132816 (LWP 5647)]
0x00002aeede4016df in __libc_waitpid () from /lib/libc.so.6

+ Trace 72632

Thread 8 (Thread 1082132816 (LWP 5647))

#0 __select_nocancel
from /lib/libc.so.6
#1 e_msgport_wait
at e-msgport.c line 643
#2 thread_dispatch
at e-msgport.c line 1035
#3 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0
#4 ??

Thread 7 (Thread 1090525520 (LWP 5648))

#0 __select_nocancel
from /lib/libc.so.6
#1 e_msgport_wait
at e-msgport.c line 643
#2 thread_dispatch
at e-msgport.c line 1035
#3 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0
#4 ??

Thread 6 (Thread 1098918224 (LWP 5650))

#0 __select_nocancel
from /lib/libc.so.6
#1 e_msgport_wait
at e-msgport.c line 643
#2 thread_dispatch
at e-msgport.c line 1035
#3 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0
#4 ??

Thread 5 (Thread 1107310928 (LWP 5653))

#0 __select_nocancel
from /lib/libc.so.6
#1 e_msgport_wait
at e-msgport.c line 643
#2 sync_op
at em-sync-stream.c line 229
#3 stream_close
at em-sync-stream.c line 327
#4 camel_object_unref
at camel-object.c line 928
#5 efh_format_do
at em-format-html.c line 1257
#6 mail_msg_received
at mail-mt.c line 570
#7 thread_dispatch
at e-msgport.c line 987
#8 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0
#9 ??

Thread 4 (Thread 1115703632 (LWP 5654))

#0 __select_nocancel
from /lib/libc.so.6
#1 e_msgport_wait
at e-msgport.c line 643
#2 thread_dispatch
at e-msgport.c line 1035
#3 start_thread
from /lib/libpthread.so.0
#4 ??

Comment 1 Karsten Bräckelmann 2006-09-18 11:22:02 UTC

Thanks for taking the time to report this bug.

This bug report isn't very useful because it doesn't describe the bug well. If you have time and can still reproduce the bug, please read http://bugzilla.gnome.org/bug-HOWTO.html and add a description of how to reproduce this bug.

Also, 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 Karsten Bräckelmann 2006-09-18 11:25:55 UTC

*** Bug 356491 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 3 Elijah Newren 2006-09-30 04:17:10 UTC

*** Bug 358407 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 4 Karsten Bräckelmann 2006-10-09 21:42:25 UTC

Actually, this bug as well as both already marked duplicates are submitted by the same reporter. Just as bug 356323...

No information provided whatsoever on either of these bugs. Matching stacktraces, although light on information. Another duplicate.


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 356323 ***