Hallo! On Mon, 16 May 2011 22:42:24 +0200, Svante Signell <svante.sign...@telia.com> wrote: > On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 20:28 +0200, Thomas Schwinge wrote: > > On Mon, 16 May 2011 18:17:38 +0200, Svante Signell > > <svante.sign...@telia.com> wrote: > > > Thread 5 (Thread 1285.10): > > > #0 0x018eff4c in ?? () > > > #1 0x018f0749 in ?? () > > > #2 0x018f0e79 in ?? () > > > #3 0x018f0f4b in ?? () > > > #4 0x0190194f in ?? () > > > #5 0x017eec3c in ?? () > > > #6 0x00000000 in ?? ()
> I don't know where this thread comes from. I have debug versions of > libc0.3, gnumach and hurd. And the exim file is not stripped: Running ``info files'' (in GDB, after the SEGFAULT happened) should tell you how the memory regions are mapped. That might give some clue about how to translate the addresses. > Additionally: No breakpoints are possible to set. Looks like they are > not honoured due to the memory address problems above. Strange. > We also see from the BT that the arguments to rda_extract are completely > wrong: > > sieve_enotify_mailto_owner=0xffffffff <Address 0xffffffff out of bounds> > probably also: eblockp=0xffffffff These look like (int) -1 displayed as 32-bit hex, or casted to (unsigned int), or to a pointer. This may be what the author intended to do, or it may be wrong -- I can't tell yet. > static int rda_exists(uschar *filename, uschar **error) Please continue here: what is this function doing? (You didn't past that one.) Does it make sense what it is doing if filename == NULL -- if we're assuming that is a valid thing to happen? (Which I can't tell either, but it may be valid.) Grüße, Thomas
pgpNQieTxNBXA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
