GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 82437
nautilus crashed when launched with a bogus command line parameter
Last modified: 2004-12-22 21:47:04 UTC
When launching nautilus HEAD, built on 5/20/02 with a bogus commandline paramater e.g. 'nautilus --foobar', it segfaults upon startup, see attached backtrace: Starting program: /gnome/head/INSTALL/bin/nautilus --foobar [New Thread 1024 (LWP 25576)] [New Thread 2049 (LWP 25593)] [New Thread 1026 (LWP 25594)] [New Thread 2051 (LWP 25595)] [New Thread 3076 (LWP 25598)] Gdk-ERROR **: The program 'nautilus' received an X Window System error. This probably reflects a bug in the program. The error was 'BadPixmap (invalid Pixmap parameter)'. (Details: serial 5384 error_code 4 request_code 2 minor_code 0) (Note to programmers: normally, X errors are reported asynchronously; that is, you will receive the error a while after causing it. To debug your program, run it with the --sync command line option to change this behavior. You can then get a meaningful backtrace from your debugger if you break on the gdk_x_error() function.) aborting... Program received signal SIGTRAP, Trace/breakpoint trap. [Switching to Thread 1024 (LWP 25576)] 0x40973458 in g_logv (log_domain=0x407c80d9 "Gdk", log_level=G_LOG_LEVEL_ERROR, format=0x407c80f2 "%s", args1=0xbffff26c) at gmessages.c:503 503 G_BREAKPOINT ();
(gdb) bt
+ Trace 22480
Not marking this 2.0.0 because there is a trivial workaround- 'don't use bogus cli stuff.' Even tempted not to mark it high. Easy one to clean out, probably, dave.
This is just precicely nothing to do with the command line parameter.
Alex, if you can repeat - can you try it with the --sync argument, and post a fresh backtrace, then we can actually pin-point where the error occured. Thanks.
after running 'nautilus --sync --foobar' throught gdb, the backtrace it too long to post so I have posted it here, http://www.astrolinux.com/stuff/nautilus_backtrace.txt
Created attachment 8627 [details] attached backtrace with the --sync option
Reopening, then...
Is this also bug 74311 or some variant thereof, dave?
Yessir. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 74311 ***