https://bugs.exim.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1671
--- Comment #8 from Wolfgang Breyha <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Phil Pennock from comment #3) > But that doesn't explain why the backtrace shows `tblock=0x0` here, because > it should have done the same on lines 1278/1279 as it does on 1282 and it > should have crashed there. I looked into that again... frame 4 contains: (gdb) print oicf_data $1 = (void *) 0xbff1f2f4 (gdb) print ((smtp_compare_t *)oicf_data)->tblock $4 = (struct transport_instance *) 0x999f398 frame 3 contains: (gdb) print s_compare->tblock $5 = (struct transport_instance *) 0x999f398 don't know why frame 2 the contains: (gdb) print tblock $6 = (struct transport_instance *) 0x0 Optimizer? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. -- ## List details at https://lists.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-dev Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
