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 548865 - evolution crashed with SIGSEGV in camel_store_get_folder()
evolution crashed with SIGSEGV in camel_store_get_folder()
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Product: evolution
Classification: Applications
Component: Mailer
2.24.x (obsolete)
Other Linux
: Normal critical
: ---
Assigned To: evolution-mail-maintainers
Evolution QA team
Depends on:
Blocks: 543389
 
 
Reported: 2008-08-21 14:22 UTC by Pedro Villavicencio
Modified: 2013-09-13 00:58 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.23/2.24



Description Pedro Villavicencio 2008-08-21 14:22:03 UTC
Evolution version is 2.23.90.1

the bug has been filed here:

https://bugs.edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/evolution/+bug/259420

"Same as bug 546613, but a new backtrace with the most recent version in Intrepid (Evolution 2.23.90.1)"

"[New Thread 0xb1c2ab90 (LWP 30461)]

(evolution:30421): camel-CRITICAL **: camel_object_is: assertion `o !=
NULL' failed

(evolution:30421): camel-CRITICAL **: camel_object_ref: assertion
`CAMEL_IS_OBJECT(o)' failed

Program received signal SIGSEGV, Segmentation fault.

Thread 2982325136 (LWP 30461)

  • #0 vee_get_folder
    at camel-vee-store.c line 196
  • #1 camel_store_get_folder
    at camel-store.c line 319
  • #2 mail_tool_uri_to_folder
    at mail-tools.c line 331
  • #3 get_folder_exec
    at mail-ops.c line 1211
  • #4 mail_msg_proxy
    at mail-mt.c line 521
  • #5 ??
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #6 ??
    from /usr/lib/libglib-2.0.so.0
  • #7 start_thread
    from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libpthread.so.0
  • #8 clone
    from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6"

Thanks,
Comment 1 Srinivasa Ragavan 2008-08-22 09:02:51 UTC
Unmatched vfolder isn't implemented for disk summary version. Crash fixed in trunk.
Comment 2 Ted Gould 2008-08-22 14:31:05 UTC
I can't seem to find the revision that has the patch since the 2.23.90 release.  Could you please provide the revision number?  Thanks.