Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-05-24 Thread Christian Biere
Haxe wrote: > On Wednesday 26 April 2006 18:13, Christian Biere wrote: > > is anyone else seeing frequent crashes with the Gtk+ 2.x GUI? > ... > > it just happens sooner or later e.g., when > > I close a search, > I have also had some crashes in the past months which I couldn't > reproduce. It s

Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-05-03 Thread Christian Biere
Christian Biere wrote: > I have no idea what gtk_tree_model_rows_reordered() is doing in > the trace and who calls it but I suspect it's the same issue or > at least related to my crashes which also shows this function. I've noticed that gdb seems to be slightly broken for me currently. Even thoug

Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-04-28 Thread Christian Biere
Hans de Graaff wrote: > #0 0x2c4e0839 in raise () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6 > #1 0x0041108e in log_handler (domain=0x2ade6477 "Gtk", > level=G_LOG_FLAG_RECURSION, > message=0x11eaf10 "gtk_tree_path_down: assertion `path != NULL' > failed", user_data=0x) at ma

Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-04-27 Thread Hans de Graaff
On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 07:23 +0200, Christian Biere wrote: > Could you change the 0 of "#if 0" in src/main.c to 1 and look at > the stack trace when it drops into gdb? > #0 0x2c4e0839 in raise () from /lib/tls/libc.so.6 #1 0x0041108e in log_handler (domain=0x2ade6477 "Gtk",

Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-04-27 Thread Bill Pringlemeir
On 26 Apr 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> All of my builds are with GCC 3.4.3 and they have the IBM stack >> protector patch. This patch actually generates quite a bit of >> extra code from what I have seen... but I do have it enabled. > Do you use -fstack-protector or -fstack-protector-all?

Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-04-27 Thread Andrew Benton
Christian Biere wrote: is anyone else seeing frequent crashes with the Gtk+ 2.x GUI? No, Gtk-Gnutella-0.96.1 stable is solid as a rock for me. Andy --- Using Tomcat but need to do more? Need to support web services, security? Get stuff done

Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-04-26 Thread Christian Biere
Hans de Graaff wrote: > On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 22:24 +0200, Christian Biere wrote: > > > 06-04-26 18:26:07 (CRITICAL): gtk_tree_path_next: assertion `path != > > > NULL' failed [...] > I get a lot of them every time I start Gtk-Gnutella. I also seem to get > a bunch of them when I switch to see som

Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-04-26 Thread Hans de Graaff
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 22:24 +0200, Christian Biere wrote: > > 06-04-26 18:26:07 (CRITICAL): gtk_tree_path_next: assertion `path != > > NULL' failed > > 06-04-26 18:26:07 (CRITICAL): gtk_tree_path_up: assertion `path != NULL' > > failed > > 06-04-26 18:26:07 (CRITICAL): gtk_tree_path_next: assertio

Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-04-26 Thread Christian Biere
Bill Pringlemeir wrote: > I also remember I had a case without a core file. I think that a > break point instructions was hit. Unless you run Gtk-Gnutella in a debugger, a break point instruction should cause a SIGTRAP and thus a core as well. For debugging purposes you should disable "fast asser

Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-04-26 Thread Bill Pringlemeir
On 26 Apr 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Bill Pringlemeir wrote: >> (gdb) bt >>> 0 0x0811bdf3 in pcache_outgoing_connection (n=0xd59) at >>> override.h:78 1 0x080fc20e in node_is_now_connected (n=0xd59) >>> at nodes.c:3213 > It would be interesting to see the details of "n". So far I don

Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-04-26 Thread Christian Biere
Bill Pringlemeir wrote: > (gdb) bt > #0 0x0811bdf3 in pcache_outgoing_connection (n=0xd59) at override.h:78 > #1 0x080fc20e in node_is_now_connected (n=0xd59) at nodes.c:3213 It would be interesting to see the details of "n". So far I don't see how the assertion could trigger. > Any req

Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-04-26 Thread Bill Pringlemeir
On 26 Apr 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > is anyone else seeing frequent crashes with the Gtk+ 2.x GUI? The > stack traces always end in gtk_tree_view_get_hover_expand with > a SIGSEGV and related to removing or reordering rows in the > search results display. I doubt it's a bug in Gtk-Gnutella b

Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-04-26 Thread Christian Biere
Hans de Graaff wrote: > No crashes, but I do get a lot of warnings: > 06-04-26 18:26:07 (CRITICAL): gtk_tree_path_next: assertion `path != > NULL' failed > 06-04-26 18:26:07 (CRITICAL): gtk_tree_path_up: assertion `path != NULL' > failed > 06-04-26 18:26:07 (CRITICAL): gtk_tree_path_next: assert

Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-04-26 Thread Hans de Graaff
On Wed, 2006-04-26 at 18:52 +0200, Haxe wrote: > On Wednesday 26 April 2006 18:13, Christian Biere wrote: > > is anyone else seeing frequent crashes with the Gtk+ 2.x GUI? > ... > > it just happens sooner or later e.g., when > > I close a search, > > I have also had some crashes in the past months

Re: [Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-04-26 Thread Haxe
On Wednesday 26 April 2006 18:13, Christian Biere wrote: > is anyone else seeing frequent crashes with the Gtk+ 2.x GUI? ... > it just happens sooner or later e.g., when > I close a search, I have also had some crashes in the past months which I couldn't reproduce. It seemed to only happen in the

[Gtk-gnutella-devel]Crashes with Gtk+ 2.x

2006-04-26 Thread Christian Biere
Hi, is anyone else seeing frequent crashes with the Gtk+ 2.x GUI? The stack traces always end in gtk_tree_view_get_hover_expand with a SIGSEGV and related to removing or reordering rows in the search results display. I doubt it's a bug in Gtk-Gnutella but this doesn't seem to be a known bug in Gtk