Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 09:48:56 +0100 From: Frode Nordahl <frode@nordahl.net> To: "Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr." <bsder@allcaps.org> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: rpc.lockd(8) seg faults on 5.2-RELEASE Message-ID: <236E6CBD-5301-11D8-B122-000A95A9A574@nordahl.net> In-Reply-To: <20040129135653.H21660@mail.allcaps.org> References: <3DC16400-517B-11D8-9CB2-0005028F6AEB@TrueStep.com> <B6959364-5240-11D8-91E0-000A95A9A574@nordahl.net> <68FC202A-525D-11D8-B122-000A95A9A574@nordahl.net> <20040129135653.H21660@mail.allcaps.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hello, I had default CFLAGS in effect, which includes -O. :-( Added -O0 now. Mvh, Frode On Jan 29, 2004, at 23:29, Andrew P. Lentvorski, Jr. wrote: > On Thu, 29 Jan 2004, Frode Nordahl wrote: > >> Caught a new and different core dump from rpc.lockd today. >> >> (gdb) bt >> #0 dump_filelock (fl=0x809c000) at lockd_lock.c:318 >> #1 0x0804e0a1 in lock_nfslock (fl=0x8080815) at lockd_lock.c:875 > > Your line numbering seems off. You might want to provide a little more > context of what line actually failed. ie. line 875 indicates a > test_nfslock() call and 318 is an initial function bracket > > Nonetheless, the reasons for your core dumps elude me. In both cases, > the > fl should have caused a core dump *before* the line you are indicating. > > -a
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?236E6CBD-5301-11D8-B122-000A95A9A574>