From owner-freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Jun 1 05:30:30 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-threads@hub.freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-threads@hub.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 09AEA16A956 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2006 05:30:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [216.136.204.21]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D8EB43D48 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2006 05:30:29 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gnats@FreeBSD.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (gnats@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id k515UTRU013087 for ; Thu, 1 Jun 2006 05:30:29 GMT (envelope-from gnats@freefall.freebsd.org) Received: (from gnats@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.13.4/8.13.4/Submit) id k515UTVC013086; Thu, 1 Jun 2006 05:30:29 GMT (envelope-from gnats) Date: Thu, 1 Jun 2006 05:30:29 GMT Message-Id: <200606010530.k515UTVC013086@freefall.freebsd.org> To: freebsd-threads@FreeBSD.org From: Robert Jenssen Cc: Subject: Re: threads/98256: gnome-system-monitor core dumps from pthread_testcancel X-BeenThere: freebsd-threads@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: Robert Jenssen List-Id: Threading on FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 05:30:38 -0000 The following reply was made to PR threads/98256; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Robert Jenssen To: bug-followup@FreeBSD.org, robertjenssen@ozemail.com.au Cc: Subject: Re: threads/98256: gnome-system-monitor core dumps from pthread_testcancel Date: Thu, 01 Jun 2006 15:23:20 +1000 On receiving the e-mail confirming my bug-report I followed the link and soon found the other pr's for threads. (Sorry, I'm a newbie). As per http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=97577 I mapped libpthread.so.2 to libc_r.so.6 in /etc/libmap.conf. For what it's worth, gnome-system-monitor has so far survived much longer than previously. I guess 98256 should be marked as a duplicate of 97577. Thanks, Rob Jenssen