Yann might already have asked this: any chance to compile with symbols and get a more readable stacktrace?
> Am 19.01.2017 um 16:30 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG > <s.pri...@profihost.ag>: > > With stock 2.4.25 + patch i'm getting this one again: > (gdb) bt > #0 0x0000000000521dcd in h2_stream_out_prepare () > #1 0x00007fc1a2feca80 in ?? () > #2 0x00007fc1a2feca8c in ?? () > #3 0x00007fc1a2feca90 in ?? () > #4 0x00007fc1a057c0a0 in ?? () > #5 0x00007fc1a057cdd8 in ?? () > #6 0x00007fc1a2fecac0 in ?? () > #7 0x0000000000000000 in ?? () > > Stefan > > Am 19.01.2017 um 16:28 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG: >> I'm now testing stock 2.4.25 + patch. >> >> May this configure option have an influence? >> --enable-nonportable-atomics=yes >> >> Greets, >> Stefan >> >> Am 19.01.2017 um 15:35 schrieb Yann Ylavic: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2017 at 3:00 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG >>> <s.pri...@profihost.ag> wrote: >>>> >>>> @Yann: >>>> should i use V7 or V6? >>> >>> I'd prefer you'd use none (such that we can verify the patch with >>> stock 2.4.25, modulo mod_http2), but if it's easier for you to >>> reproduce with an event's patch, please use the v6 (and if it fails >>> then v7, and if it fails then no patch, really). >>> Stefan Eissing <green/>bytes GmbH Hafenstrasse 16 48155 Münster www.greenbytes.de
