Nowaday's firefox crash retraces actually seem to work very well. I
picked four random examples: bug 419980, bug 422152, bug 422379, bug
358909, and they all have complete stack traces. So it seems the
retracer improvements in the last half year turned things to the better.
So while this arguably
Thank you for taking the time to report this bug and helping to make
Ubuntu better. You reported this bug a while ago and there hasn't been
any activity in it recently. We were wondering if this is still an issue
for you. Can you try with the latest Ubuntu release? Thanks in advance.
Bug 94753 is
Bug 94753 still doesn't have any proper retrace, so it seems as if this
is still an issue :-(.
Note that this bug isn't specifically about getting bug 94753 fixed.
It's about getting apport-retrace fixed so that bugs similar to bug
94753 won't take three years to fix in the future.
If glibc
s/three/two/
--
apport-retrace fails to retrace bug 94753
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/95504
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
This blocks bug 78725, which has 19 duplicates.
Any luck with fixing the re-tracer?
Regards //Johan
--
apport-retrace fails to retrace bug 94753
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/95504
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for
The comments in bug 94753 can be summed up as: We can't do anything
with this.
So they are waiting for this bug to be resolved.
--
apport-retrace fails to retrace bug 94753
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/95504
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is
Martin, do you have what you need to be able to reproduce this?
--
apport-retrace fails to retrace bug 94753
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/95504
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is the bug contact for Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
Johan, I wanted to wait for hjmf's answer on the other bug.
--
apport-retrace fails to retrace bug 94753
https://launchpad.net/bugs/95504
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
I wrote a followup to bug 94753. Wrt. the v*printf() order, I have no
idea :(
** Changed in: apport (Ubuntu)
Status: Unconfirmed = Needs Info
--
apport-retrace fails to retrace bug 94753
https://launchpad.net/bugs/95504
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
Hi!
What kind of information is it that you want (since you set the status
to Needs Info)?
Were you able to reproduce this? Or are you lacking something you need
to be able to try to repro?
** Changed in: apport (Ubuntu)
Status: Needs Info = Unconfirmed
--
apport-retrace fails to
Note that none of the libc / libpthread functions have neither arguments nor
local variables:
http://librarian.launchpad.net/6898430/%3Cfdopen%3E
--
apport-retrace fails to retrace bug 94753
https://launchpad.net/bugs/95504
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
Also, it would surprize me if this is really correct:
Thread 1 (process 6386):
#0 0xb7785e09 in vfprintf () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
#1 0xb77a7b8c in vasprintf () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libc.so.6
[...]
Why would vasprintf() (that writes to an in-memory buffer) call
vfprintf()
12 matches
Mail list logo
