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 83024 - Panel crashed fairly spontaneously
Panel crashed fairly spontaneously
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 78372
Product: gnome-panel
Classification: Other
Component: panel
1.5.x
Other Linux
: Normal critical
: ---
Assigned To: Panel Maintainers
Panel Maintainers
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
 
Reported: 2002-05-25 22:39 UTC by Andrew Sobala
Modified: 2004-12-22 21:47 UTC
See Also:
GNOME target: ---
GNOME version: 2.0

Attachments
trace (28.62 KB, text/plain)
2002-05-25 22:46 UTC, Andrew Sobala 		Details

Description Andrew Sobala 2002-05-25 22:39:55 UTC 
The panel crashed. This is from yesterday's CVS.

For some reason bug-buddy didn't save some of the trace, I'll post a more
detailed trace if it happens again.

Backtrace was generated from '/gnome/head/INSTALL/bin/gnome-panel'

[New Thread 1024 (LWP 4906)]
0x40947409 in wait4 () from /lib/libc.so.6

+ Trace 22779

  • #0 wait4
    from /lib/libc.so.6
  • #1 __check_rhosts_file
    from /lib/libc.so.6
  • #2 waitpid
    at wrapsyscall.c line 172
  • #3 libgnomeui_segv_handle
    at gnome-ui-init.c line 592
  • #4 pthread_sighandler
    at signals.c line 97
  • #5 killpg
    from /lib/libc.so.6
  • #6 gtk_object_dispose
    at gtkobject.c line 375
  • #7 gtk_widget_dispose
    at gtkwidget.c line 5605
  • #8 g_object_run_dispose
    at gobject.c line 468
  • #9 gtk_object_destroy
    at gtkobject.c line 358
  • #10 gtk_widget_destroy
    at gtkwidget.c line 1581
  • #11 gtk_table_forall
    at gtktable.c line 942
  • #12 gtk_container_foreach
    at gtkcontainer.c line 1179
  • #13 gtk_container_destroy
    at gtkcontainer.c line 725
  • #14 g_cclosure_marshal_VOID__VOID
    at gmarshal.c line 77
  • #15 g_type_class_meta_marshal 
    return_value=0x0, n_param_values=1, para
Comment 1 Andrew Sobala 2002-05-25 22:46:01 UTC 
It happened again. I'm having trouble getting a backtrace and I'll
have to post it as an attachment.
Comment 2 Andrew Sobala 2002-05-25 22:46:27 UTC 
Created attachment 8726 [details]
trace
Comment 3 Luis Villa 2002-06-05 11:58:17 UTC 
Pretty sure that this is 78372.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 78372 ***