On Thu, 21 Aug 2003, Lasse Danielsen wrote: >:) hello Andy! Thank you for the quick response. I killed off the offending >processes, but I fould some new ones. They're not quite as large users of >memory, but they've stayed on for some time. Here's the gdb output from one >of them (This is my first venture in gdb land, so please tell me if I did >something wrong):
Hi, Lasse. Your gdb output is perfect. :) >#> gdb /var/qmail/bincimap/bin/bincimapd 31418 >late2b0i0_Q24Binc2IORCX01_RQ24Binc2IO ( > this=0x184000, [EMAIL PROTECTED]) at convert.h:295 >#8 0x71419 in Binc::MaildirMessage::printBody (this=0x19c05c) at >maildirmessage.cc:848 >#9 0xec0d2 in Binc::FetchOperator::process (this=Error accessing memory >address 0x0: Invalid argument. >) at operator-fetch.cc:280 >#10 0x16580 in main (argc=1, argv=0xcfbfd208) at bincimapd.cc:147 I don't understand how this could be, as the fetchoperator should abort if this=0. Did you compile with debug info first, then run gdb, or did you already have an unstripped binary? If you compiled and then attached, the backtrace from gdb may be wrong. In any case, could you try again with a gdb backtrace, so that we can check if this breakpoint is consistent or not? Thanks for the help, Andy -- Andreas Aardal Hanssen | http://www.andreas.hanssen.name/gpg Author of Binc IMAP | "It is better not to do something | than to do it poorly."
