Bug 197849

Summary: kdialog crash
Product: [Unmaintained] kdelibs Reporter: efklid
Component: klocaleAssignee: Chusslove Illich <caslav.ilic>
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE    
Severity: crash CC: andresbajotierra, finex
Priority: NOR    
Version First Reported In: unspecified   
Target Milestone: ---   
Platform: unspecified   
OS: Linux   
Latest Commit: Version Fixed/Implemented In:
Sentry Crash Report:

Description efklid 2009-06-25 17:00:16 UTC 
Version:            (using KDE 4.2.4)
Compiler:          i686 
OS:                Linux
Installed from:    Unlisted Binary Package

Приложение: KDialog (kdialog), сигнал SIGABRT

Thread 1 (Thread 0xb5fae710 (LWP 2596)):
[KCrash Handler]
#6  0xb80ce424 in __kernel_vsyscall ()
#7  0xb688c7a1 in raise () from /lib/libc.so.6
#8  0xb688dfd4 in abort () from /lib/libc.so.6
#9  0xb74c2ee4 in qt_message_output () from /usr/lib/libQtCore.so.4
#10 0xb74c2fce in qFatal () from /usr/lib/libQtCore.so.4
#11 0xb78125ac in KCatalog::operator= () from /usr/lib/libkdecore.so.5
#12 0xb7820c1c in KLocalePrivate::updateCatalogs () from /usr/lib/libkdecore.so.5
#13 0xb7827074 in KLocale::removeCatalog () from /usr/lib/libkdecore.so.5
#14 0xb77a6f29 in KComponentDataPrivate::~KComponentDataPrivate () from /usr/lib/libkdecore.so.5
#15 0xb77a6c20 in KComponentData::~KComponentData () from /usr/lib/libkdecore.so.5
#16 0xb77a32e5 in ._120::destroy () from /usr/lib/libkdecore.so.5
#17 0xb773797b in KCleanUpGlobalStatic::~KCleanUpGlobalStatic () from /usr/lib/libkdecore.so.5
#18 0xb688f77f in __run_exit_handlers () from /lib/libc.so.6
#19 0xb688f7ef in exit () from /lib/libc.so.6
#20 0x08055871 in _start ()
Comment 1 FiNeX 2009-06-25 17:41:05 UTC 
Please, would you like to explain (in english) what crashed and what did you do for having the crash?

many thanks!
Comment 2 Dario Andres 2009-06-25 23:53:31 UTC 
This seems to be probably the same as bug 193491. FiNeX: do you think the same?
Thanks
Comment 3 FiNeX 2009-06-26 00:30:32 UTC 
It seems very similar. Looking to other duplicates of bug #193491. I think we can safely mark this as dup (this backtrace is almost identical to at least two dups of #193491)

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 193491 ***