Martin Stjernholm wrote:
"Stephen R. van den Berg" srb@cuci.nl wrote:
Could you please put this a bit higher on the priority list, since I'd have to revert to an older version of the code otherwise?
Oh, I thought you already reverted it after catching those errors, considering it is a production system.
The coredump archiving scripts are so efficient that the users tend not to notice, which is why I can (up to a certain limit) keep it in production this way.
The debug shows a real problem, but I haven't worked out a fix yet. Just in case I need to see something more, please keep a core dump and the binary around (for gdb use).
Ok, I'll keep two, for reference. It just means that I need to compile from a different tree (which I wanted to avoid), since keeping the binaries, but not the accompanying sources tends to make gdb navigation unusable.