Bug 371341 – crash in Terminal: SSH'ing into a server......

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 371341 - crash in Terminal: SSH'ing into a server......


Summary:	crash in Terminal: SSH'ing into a server......


Status:	RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 353498

Product:	gnome-terminal
Classification:	Core
Component:	general
Version:	2.16.x
Hardware:	Other All

Importance:	High critical
Target Milestone:	---
Assigned To:	GNOME Terminal Maintainers
QA Contact:	GNOME Terminal Maintainers

URL:
Whiteboard:

Depends on:
Blocks:

Reported:	2006-11-06 01:55 UTC by christian.muise
Modified:	2006-11-06 09:08 UTC

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

Description christian.muise 2006-11-06 01:55:54 UTC

Version: 2.16.1

What were you doing when the application crashed?
SSH'ing into a server...disrupted a very important vi session :p.	


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

Memory status: size: 55697408 vsize: 0 resident: 55697408 share: 0 rss: 16224256 rss_rlim: 0
CPU usage: start_time: 1162745317 rtime: 0 utime: 236 stime: 0 cutime:206 cstime: 0 timeout: 30 it_real_value: 0 frequency: 62

Backtrace was generated from '/usr/bin/gnome-terminal'

(no debugging symbols found)
Using host libthread_db library "/lib/tls/i686/cmov/libthread_db.so.1".
(no debugging symbols found)
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread -1226598736 (LWP 7630)]
[New Thread -1250849888 (LWP 7635)]
(no debugging symbols found)
0xffffe410 in __kernel_vsyscall ()

+ Trace 83462

Thread 1 (Thread -1226598736 (LWP 7630))

#0 __kernel_vsyscall
#1 __waitpid_nocancel
from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libpthread.so.0
#2 gnome_gtk_module_info_get
from /usr/lib/libgnomeui-2.so.0
#3 <signal handler called>
#4 gtk_widget_style_get_valist
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#5 gtk_widget_style_get
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#6 gtk_widget_style_get
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#7 gtk_widget_style_get
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#8 gtk_button_box_set_child_size
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#9 gtk_container_forall
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#10 gtk_widget_style_get
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#11 gtk_widget_style_get
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#12 gtk_widget_queue_resize
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#13 gtk_widget_set_usize
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#14 gtk_widget_set_usize
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#15 gtk_notebook_popup_enable
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#16 gtk_container_forall
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#17 gtk_widget_set_usize
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#18 gtk_box_pack_start_defaults
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#19 gtk_container_forall
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#20 gtk_widget_set_usize
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#21 gtk_button_box_set_child_size
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#22 gtk_container_forall
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#23 gtk_widget_set_usize
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#24 gtk_widget_reset_rc_styles
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#25 gtk_rc_get_theme_dir
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#26 gtk_icon_info_get_type
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#27 g_source_is_destroyed
from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
#28 g_main_context_dispatch
from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
#29 g_main_context_check
from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
#30 g_main_loop_run
from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
#31 gtk_main
from /usr/lib/libgtk-x11-2.0.so.0
#32 ??
#33 ??
#34 _IO_stdin_used
#35 ??
#36 ??
#0 __kernel_vsyscall

Comment 1 André Klapper 2006-11-06 09:08:59 UTC

Thanks for taking the time to report this bug.
This particular bug has already been reported into our bug tracking system, but the maintainers need more information to fix the bug. Could you please answer the questions in the other report in order to help the developers?


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 353498 ***