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 128951 - gdk_event_* crashes [caused by 117579]
gdk_event_* crashes [caused by 117579]
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 117579
Product: gtk+
Classification: Platform
Component: Backend: X11
2.4.x
Other Linux
: High critical
: ---
Assigned To: gtk-bugs
gtk-bugs
: 126404 128974 129485 (view as bug list)
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2003-12-10 05:28 UTC by Kaushal Kumar
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: 2.6.next
GNOME version: ---


Description Kaushal Kumar 2003-12-10 05:28:48 UTC 
Steps to simulate the bug:
1. Invoke the nautilus browser and change the view from icons to list.
2. Drag the scroll bar down and then up.

=> Nautilus crashed.

How often does this happen?
It happened atleast once.

The stack trace obtained using bug-buddy is below:

[New Thread 1024 (LWP 29236)]
[New Thread 2049 (LWP 29237)]
[New Thread 1026 (LWP 29238)]
[New Thread 2051 (LWP 29261)]
[New Thread 3076 (LWP 29262)]
[New Thread 4101 (LWP 29263)]
[New Thread 5126 (LWP 29264)]
0x40d89519 in __wait4 () from /lib/i686/libc.so.6

+ Trace 42489

Thread 1 (Thread 1024 (LWP 29236))

  • #0 __wait4
    from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
  • #1 __DTOR_END__
    from /lib/i686/libc.so.6
  • #2 waitpid
    at wrapsyscall.c line 172
  • #3 libgnomeui_segv_handle
    at gnome-ui-init.c line 738
  • #4 pthread_sighandler
    at signals.c line 97
  • #5 <signal handler called>
  • #6 gdk_event_translate
    at gdkevents-x11.c line 822
  • #7 _gdk_events_queue
    at gdkevents-x11.c line 2028
  • #8 gdk_event_dispatch
    at gdkevents-x11.c line 2088
  • #9 g_main_dispatch
    at gmain.c line 1752
  • #10 g_main_context_dispatch
    at gmain.c line 2300
  • #11 g_main_context_iterate
    at gmain.c line 2381
  • #12 g_main_loop_run
    at gmain.c line 2601
  • #13 gtk_main
    at gtkmain.c line 1158
  • #14 main
    at nautilus-main.c line 327
  • #15 __libc_start_main
    at ../sysdeps/generic/libc-start.c line 129
  • #0 __wait4
    from /lib/i686/libc.so.6 






Comment 1


Elijah Newren





          2003-12-10 16:21:58 UTC
        



Looks like the same stack trace (even with the same line numbers) as
the one in bug 128974.  This also looks a lot like 105745; what
version of gtk are you running?






Comment 2


Kaushal Kumar





          2003-12-11 04:17:04 UTC
        



I am running gtk+ which I checked-out from head and built on Nov
24,2003. 






Comment 3


Elijah Newren





          2003-12-11 18:50:29 UTC
        



Well, it looks like it's probably a gtk problem to me but I'll let the
nautilus maintainers have a look at it first.  Adding the STACKTRACE
and bugsquad keywords.






Comment 4


Andrew Sobala





          2003-12-11 20:15:10 UTC
        



*** Bug 128974 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***






Comment 5


Andrew Sobala





          2003-12-11 20:16:52 UTC
        



Moving to gtk, per Owen's comments in bug 128974.

He says this could be related to bug 117579 (purify memory stuff).






Comment 6


Luis Villa





          2003-12-14 01:42:21 UTC
        



Adding TARGET 2.6.0; i'd really hate to see apps randomly crashing on
people for a supposedly stable release. I get the exact same top-level
trace from evolution, while evolution is hidden/not the 'active' app.
I've seen it a few times now, though this is the first I've filed it.

Trace:
Backtrace was generated from '/usr/bin/evolution'

(no debugging symbols found)...Using host libthread_db library
"/lib/tls/libthread_db.so.1".
(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)...[Thread
debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread -1085038464 (LWP 10196)]
[New Thread 116702128 (LWP 10232)]
[New Thread 62204848 (LWP 10203)]
[New Thread 42654640 (LWP 10202)]
[New Thread 32164784 (LWP 10201)]
[New Thread 102226864 (LWP 10200)]
[New Thread 80944048 (LWP 10199)]

0x0079dc32 in _dl_sysinfo_int80 () from /lib/ld-linux.so.2




+
Trace
    42615






Thread 1
          (Thread -1085038464 (LWP 10196))


    

  • 
#0
_dl_sysinfo_int80

    
                from
                /lib/ld-linux.so.2

    

    • 

  • 
#1
__waitpid_nocancel

    
                from
                /lib/tls/libpthread.so.0

    

    • 

  • 
#2
libgnomeui_segv_handle

    
                at gnome-ui-init.c
                  line
                  738

    

    • 

  • 
#3
evolution_storage_set_view_factory_new_view

    • 

  • 
#4
<signal handler called>

    • 

  • 
#5
gdk_event_translate

    
                at gdkevents-x11.c
                  line
                  822

    

    • 

  • 
#6
_gdk_events_queue

    
                at gdkevents-x11.c
                  line
                  2029

    

    • 

  • 
#7
gdk_event_dispatch

    
                at gdkevents-x11.c
                  line
                  2089

    

    • 

  • 
#8
g_main_dispatch

    
                at gmain.c
                  line
                  1752

    

    • 

  • 
#9
g_main_context_dispatch

    
                at gmain.c
                  line
                  2300

    

    • 

  • 
#10
g_main_context_iterate

    
                at gmain.c
                  line
                  2381

    

    • 

  • 
#11
g_main_loop_run

    
                at gmain.c
                  line
                  2601

    

    • 

  • 
#12
bonobo_main

    
                at bonobo-main.c
                  line
                  297

    

    • 

  • 
#13
main

    • 

  • 
#0
_dl_sysinfo_int80

    
                from
                /lib/ld-linux.so.2

    

    • 













Comment 7


Soren Sandmann Pedersen





          2003-12-14 09:20:44 UTC
        



Crashes

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 117579 ***






Comment 8


Elijah Newren





          2003-12-17 17:27:04 UTC
        



Perhaps I'm just dense, but I really don't see how this is a duplicate
of bug 117579 other than Owen's comment that it "might be related." 
(The stack traces definitely don't look the same at all)  Is this
really supposed to be marked as a duplicate?  If so, I think "[dup
117579]" should be put in the summary so that using the
simple-dup-finder becomes a little easier.

Also, fwiw, I've seen this crash a couple times myself--I just haven't
bothered reporting it since bug reports had already been filed.






Comment 9


Elijah Newren





          2003-12-17 17:27:10 UTC
        



*** Bug 129485 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***






Comment 10


Elijah Newren





          2003-12-17 17:29:19 UTC
        



*** Bug 126404 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***






Comment 11


Owen Taylor





          2003-12-17 17:39:31 UTC
        



It's almost certainly the same bug. There are two reasons 
why I don't expect identical backtraces:

 - Morten was reporting the first time that purify 
   found an error, not the resulting crash.

 - The problem here is corruption of GDK internal structures,
   it will show up in different ways at different
   times.







Comment 12


Elijah Newren





          2003-12-17 18:01:35 UTC
        



Ok, thanks for the info.