Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2005 19:31:36 -0500 (EST) From: Daniel Eischen <deischen@freebsd.org> To: Brian Behlendorf <brian@hyperreal.org> Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: I can not surf on Flash powered sites. Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.43.0503021926300.28715-100000@sea.ntplx.net> In-Reply-To: <20050302161410.X84651@paz.hyperreal.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Brian Behlendorf wrote: > On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Daniel Eischen wrote: > > > > Why don't you run firefox with -g and get a dump and backtrace > > out of it? > > Because, as I said earlier this thread: > > I do try it every couple of weeks to see if it works, but the best it > gets is two-three web sites and then the seg fault. I realize until I > sit down with a stack trace I haven't earned the right to complain, so I > haven't yet, figuring it'll be important enough someday to someone > clueful enough. Or, Macromedia will some day lighten up and let Mozilla > include it as part of the web browser by default. Or something. > > ...and that I've got nowhere near the chops to do anything useful with a > stack trace that I'm sure others do. I thought I'd pipe up in response to > Ruben's message to provide a data point. Am I the only one for whom > Firefox and www/flashplugin-firefox doesn't work? Is it that hard to type 'firefox -g', alias firefox="firefox -g", or whatever, and use it that way for a few days to see if you can get a trace? I'm just wondering if it has the same problem as linuxpluginwrapper, or bad assumptions about mutexes being recursive or unlocking one you don't own. Most folks I know use the linuxpluginwrapper so we don't have any experience with the native flash player. I think I recall trying it and it not working, hence the use of linuxpluginwrapper. -- DE
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.GSO.4.43.0503021926300.28715-100000>