From owner-freebsd-stable Sun Dec 17 10:22:12 2000 From owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Dec 17 10:22:11 2000 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from pcnet1.pcnet.com (pcnet1.pcnet.com [204.213.232.3]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6DD337B402 for ; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 10:22:10 -0800 (PST) Received: (from eischen@localhost) by pcnet1.pcnet.com (8.8.7/PCNet) id NAA27991; Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:21:44 -0500 (EST) Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 13:21:44 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen To: H Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: mozilla and 4.2-RELEASE In-Reply-To: <20001217181521.A35032@moya.hans.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sun, 17 Dec 2000, H wrote: > Szilveszter Adam wrote: > > > A gdb(1) trace shows that the segfault is in the internal functions of > > nspr, so it is possibly not a C++ problem. Once the stack trace went > > as deep as libc_r, however. > > > > Since the Mozilla team has dropped all FreeBSD tinderboxes from their > > cluster (although they have added OpenBSD 2.5 back) they are probably > > totally unaware of the problems. > > Well, I complained about this in their nspr newsgroup: See the thread > news://news.mozilla.org/3A37A3DB.3E457946%40blender.nl > > It seems to boil down to "Fatal error 'siglongjmp()ing between thread > contexts is undefined by POSIX 1003.1'" in libc_r Ouch. _If_that_really_is_the_problem, then the developers ought to be taken out and shot! I do find it hard to believe that someone would attempt to do that, so it might just be a symptom of the real problem. Perhaps signal masks aren't being properly set and the wrong thread is receiving the signal. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message