MASTER [@g_timeout_dispatch] libflashplayer.so

[pk]

Binary package hint: firefox

i don't know what make crushed firefox.

ProblemType: Crash
Architecture: i386
CrashCounter: 1
Date: Sun Mar 4 10:57:24 2007
DistroRelease: Ubuntu 7.04
ExecutablePath: /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin
Package: firefox 2.0.0.2+1-0ubuntu1
ProcCmdline: /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-bin
ProcCwd: /home/pk-u
ProcEnviron:
 SHELL=/bin/bash
 PATH=/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/bin/X11:/usr/games
 LANG=ko_KR.UTF-8
 LANGUAGE=ko_KR.UTF-8
Signal: 11
SourcePackage: firefox
StacktraceTop:
 __kernel_vsyscall ()
 raise () from /lib/tls/i686/cmov/libpthread.so.0
 ?? ()
 ?? ()
 ?? ()
Uname: Linux home 2.6.20-9-generic #2 SMP Mon Feb 26 03:01:44 UTC 2007 i686 GNU/Linux
UserGroups: adm admin audio cdrom dialout dip plugdev scanner users

[Hilario J. Montoliu (hjmf) (hmontoliu)]

Thank you pk for submitting this crash report.

Taking for retrace

[Hilario J. Montoliu (hjmf) (hmontoliu)]

Retrace done.

Probably a libflashplayer.so issue

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 09:33:12PM -0000, John Vivirito wrote:
> ** Summary changed:
>
> - firefox crash in libflashplayer.so [@g_timeout_dispatch]
> + MASTER [@g_timeout_dispatch] libflashplayer.so
>

hmmm ... we already have a master for that don't we?

 - Alexander

[John Vivirito (gnomefreak)]

I couldnt find one and i asked hjmf if he had one he said no so i marked this as one. If you happen to stuble across it let me know please so it can be fixed.

[Hilario J. Montoliu (hjmf) (hmontoliu)]

asac, If I'm not wrong that master was bug 90037 but since this report was older I marked bug 90037 as duplicate of this one. So when John requested to mark this bug as our master I said it was fine for me.

The stacktraces of both bugs are almost the same.

Of course if you think that its better to leave bug 90037 as the master it will be OK for me too.

Hilario M.

[Alexander Sack (asac)]

On Thu, Mar 08, 2007 at 06:26:25AM -0000, Hilario J. Montoliu (hjmf) wrote:
> asac, If I'm not wrong that master was bug 90037 but since this report
> was older I marked bug 90037 as duplicate of this one. So when John
> requested to mark this bug as our master I said it was fine for me.
>
> The stacktraces of both bugs are almost the same.
>
> Of course if you think that its better to leave bug 90037 as the master
> it will be OK for me too.

No its fine ... its just important that we have a master bug :) ... at
least as long as not one of the two bugs contains a valid testcase
... which would definitly make this bug the most proper MASTER bug.

 - Alexander