On Thu, Mar 04, 2010 at 12:11:30AM +0100, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > Hi! > > Marcin Szewczyk <debian.bugrep...@wodny.org> (03/03/2010): > > It's probably the case (it sounds like I knew what I'm writing > > about), because after a crash (on a text vt) I can see the same > > backtrace as previously (at least the function from the frame #9 > > doesn't appear). > > I'm a bit lost here. Trying to get things properly, can we talk about > only gdb traces, so as to make sure we don't mix everything together?
Sorry for that ambiguity. I got 2 gdb backtraces - both the same, both with the additional function xf86RandR12ChangeGamma. I got 2 X traces (associated with the gdb ones - same crashes) - both the same, both without the function. Every gdb against X backtrace differs by that function. > So my question: Can you now obtain two different gdb backtraces now? No. > The patch I've just cherry-picked should help (that's for the extra > function that gets called in the “new” trace) getting rid of the crash > entirely. OK, could You provide me with the source version of the second patch? I learn new things here and I'm curious. Everything should happen faster now, as I know the procedure and I don't have to do a clean rebuild. > It could be that: > - My first patch does something, but that's not sufficient. > - My first patch serves no purposes at all. I will test: - the patch1 + patch2 version, - the patch2 only version. -- Marcin Szewczyk http://wodny.org mailto:marcin.szewc...@wodny.borg <- remove b / usuń b xmpp:wo...@ubuntu.pl xmpp:wo...@jabster.pl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-x-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100304020810.ga11...@magazyn-ziarno.zbozowa
