On Mon, Apr 09, 2012 at 09:59:49AM -0700, Adam Dingle wrote: > On 04/09/2012 09:45 AM, oliver wrote: > >Hello, > > > > > >why is SIGTRAP not caught and irgnored? > > > > > >I used ltrace to attach on an already running > >shotwell, and it was killed by this attempt > >and SIGTRAP was the reason. > > > >If SIGTRAP could be caught and ignored, > >this problem would not stay here. > > > >Some days ago I thought, this problem only coccured with > >old versions (0.7.2). But this time it occured in 0.11.6 > >also. > > > >Would be nice if this signal can be caught/ignored, > >instead of that it kills shotwell. > > > >or are there any reasons why this signal should kill shotwell? > > Oliver, > > ltrace can't handle multi-threaded processes, and causes them to die > with SIGTRAP. This has nothing to do with Shotwell specifically. > See, for example, > > http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/ltrace-devel/2006-April/000036.html > http://kazenotaiyo.blogspot.com/2010/02/tracing-system-and-library-calls-w.html > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=526007
Oh, thank you foir the links. Din't knew that ltrace prolem. > > Perhaps you'd have better luck with other tracing tools such as > strace or latrace. Cheers - strace I already used and it has worked with shotwell, but the output is rather Unix-API calls only, which not necessarily is, what I was looking for. latrace I didn't knew so far. Thanks for the hint I will have a look at it. Ciao, Oliver _______________________________________________ Shotwell mailing list [email protected] http://lists.yorba.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/shotwell
