GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 117110
Random Crash
Last modified: 2004-12-22 21:47:04 UTC
Package: gnome-panel Severity: normal Version: 2.2.0.1 Synopsis: Random Crash Bugzilla-Product: gnome-panel Bugzilla-Component: general BugBuddy-GnomeVersion: 2.0 (2.2.0.1) Description: Description of Problem: Crashed while surfing linux.org Steps to reproduce the problem: 1. 2. 3. Actual Results: Expected Results: How often does this happen? This is the first time this has happened. Additional Information: Nothing further at this time. Debugging Information: Backtrace was generated from '/usr/bin/gnome-panel' (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...(no debugging symbols found)... (no debugging symbols found)...0xffffe002 in ?? ()
+ Trace 38569
------- Bug moved to this database by unknown@bugzilla.gnome.org 2003-07-09 19:43 ------- The original reporter (rlowery@osprey.net) of this bug does not have an account here. Reassigning to the exporter, unknown@bugzilla.gnome.org. Reassigning to the default owner of the component, gnome-panel-maint@bugzilla.gnome.org.
Looks like a duplicate of bug 105762, which has been marked as a duplicate of bug 105745, but I'm unsure do to the flockfile function call. Moving to gtk+... I'll leave this open in case just seeing that function appear in a trace like this is useful. However, they'll likely mark it as needinfo. Reporter: Can you install http://people.redhat.com/otaylor/tmp/gtk2-debuginfo-2.2.1-4.i386.rpm and if the problem occurs again, submit the backtrace you get. Installing the debuginfo package will make the backtrace much more useful.
The flockfile call is just garbage... nothing in GDK is going to call that. I don't know if this was Red Hat 9, so the debuginfo package may not be useful. Resolving as a duplicate, since it probably is, and we aren't going to find out anything more. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 105745 ***