From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Sep 6 06:12:47 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6E5816A4CF for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 06:12:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from zombie.ezone.ru (zombie.ezone.ru [195.128.162.78]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DF0743D39 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 06:12:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from mcsi@mcsi.pp.ru) Received: from [172.16.4.26] (ultra.domain [172.16.4.26] (may be forged)) by zombie.ezone.ru (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i866Cjf3074325; Mon, 6 Sep 2004 10:12:46 +0400 (MSD) (envelope-from mcsi@mcsi.pp.ru) Message-ID: <413BFFD7.50503@mcsi.pp.ru> Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 10:12:39 +0400 From: Maxim Maximov User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.1) Gecko/20040707 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Daniel O'Connor" References: <413BC4CD.5090201@hamla.org> <200409061345.43031.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> <413BF944.8070108@mcsi.pp.ru> <200409061533.39374.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> In-Reply-To: <200409061533.39374.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: Sahil Tandon cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: portsdb -Uu results in coredump X-BeenThere: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Production branch of FreeBSD source code List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 06 Sep 2004 06:12:48 -0000 Daniel O'Connor wrote: > On Mon, 6 Sep 2004 15:14, Maxim Maximov wrote: > >>That doesn't help. I tried to entirely delete all /usr/ports, ruby*, >>portupgrade*, removed /var/db/pkg/pkgdb.db, install those all over again >>and still get a coredump. >> >>SIGSEGV appears in libc.so.4 in __bt_split() and it seems like a real >>bug in there triggered by ruby_bdb1 and some line in the ports/INDEX. Oops, I meant SIGBUS here. > > > Hmm, I am running 6-current (libc.so.5) so perhaps the patch to fix it wasn't > tested in 4.x? > What patch are you talking about? I've got coredumps on two my 4.10 machines and all my 5.x/6 systems didn't get this error, BTW. -- Maxim Maximov