Bug 129632 - crash using dimap after "Check Mail"
Summary: crash using dimap after "Check Mail"
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 127863
Alias: None
Product: kmail
Classification: Applications
Component: general (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Platform: Gentoo Packages Linux
: NOR crash
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: kdepim bugs
Depends on:
Reported: 2006-06-22 10:54 UTC by Sebastian Held
Modified: 2007-09-14 12:17 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Sebastian Held 2006-06-22 10:54:32 UTC
Version:            (using KDE KDE 3.5.3)
Installed from:    Gentoo Packages
Compiler:          i686-pc-linux-gnu-gcc (GCC) 3.4.6 (Gentoo Hardened 3.4.6-r1, ssp-3.4.5-1.0, pie-8.7.9) 
OS:                Linux

I created a new folder on dimap account. After moving some mails into this new folder and clicking "Check Mail" icon, kmail (in fact kontact) crashes.

Using host libthread_db library "/lib/libthread_db.so.1".
`system-supplied DSO at 0xffffe000' has disappeared; keeping its symbols.
[Thread debugging using libthread_db enabled]
[New Thread -1243859280 (LWP 11637)]
[New Thread -1284494432 (LWP 12481)]
[New Thread -1276101728 (LWP 12480)]
[New Thread -1267709024 (LWP 12479)]
[New Thread -1259316320 (LWP 12478)]
[KCrash handler]
#6  0x0065642e in ?? ()
#7  0xb533f9c4 in KMFolderImap::flagsToStatus ()
   from /usr/kde/3.5/lib/libkmailprivate.so
#8  0xb55ac4a1 in KMFolderCachedImap::slotGetMessagesData ()
   from /usr/kde/3.5/lib/libkmailprivate.so
#9  0xb55b2bc6 in KMFolderCachedImap::qt_invoke ()
   from /usr/kde/3.5/lib/libkmailprivate.so
#10 0xb6602018 in QObject::activate_signal (this=0x8ce9f70, clist=0x8a10a18, 
    o=0xbfbc34b0) at kernel/qobject.cpp:2356
#11 0xb73aaa19 in KIO::TransferJob::data () from /usr/kde/3.5/lib/libkio.so.4
#12 0xb73aaa88 in KIO::TransferJob::slotData ()
   from /usr/kde/3.5/lib/libkio.so.4
#13 0xb73d5e9c in KIO::TransferJob::qt_invoke ()
   from /usr/kde/3.5/lib/libkio.so.4
#14 0xb6602018 in QObject::activate_signal (this=0x8a067f0, clist=0x89a24e0, 
    o=0xbfbc35e0) at kernel/qobject.cpp:2356
#15 0xb73a6d2d in KIO::SlaveInterface::data ()
   from /usr/kde/3.5/lib/libkio.so.4
#16 0xb73f69ad in KIO::SlaveInterface::dispatch ()
   from /usr/kde/3.5/lib/libkio.so.4
#17 0xb73d3cc3 in KIO::SlaveInterface::dispatch ()
   from /usr/kde/3.5/lib/libkio.so.4
#18 0xb73ca23b in KIO::Slave::gotInput () from /usr/kde/3.5/lib/libkio.so.4
#19 0xb73d1f68 in KIO::Slave::qt_invoke () from /usr/kde/3.5/lib/libkio.so.4
#20 0xb6602018 in QObject::activate_signal (this=0x8994a28, clist=0x8a06a58, 
    o=0xbfbc3a60) at kernel/qobject.cpp:2356
#21 0xb66023b5 in QObject::activate_signal (this=0x8994a28, signal=2, 
    param=50) at kernel/qobject.cpp:2449
#22 0xb69eba37 in QSocketNotifier::activated (this=0x8994a28, t0=50)
    at .moc/debug-shared-mt/moc_qsocketnotifier.cpp:85
#23 0xb6627513 in QSocketNotifier::event (this=0x8994a28, e=0xbfbc3dc0)
    at kernel/qsocketnotifier.cpp:258
#24 0xb6590e31 in QApplication::internalNotify (this=0xbfbc4040, 
    receiver=0x8994a28, e=0xbfbc3dc0) at kernel/qapplication.cpp:2635
#25 0xb6590080 in QApplication::notify (this=0xbfbc4040, receiver=0x8994a28, 
    e=0xbfbc3dc0) at kernel/qapplication.cpp:2358
#26 0xb6ec0616 in KApplication::notify ()
   from /usr/kde/3.5/lib/libkdecore.so.4
#27 0xb65166c8 in QApplication::sendEvent (receiver=0x8994a28, 
    event=0xbfbc3dc0) at qapplication.h:496
#28 0xb657c568 in QEventLoop::activateSocketNotifiers (this=0x8173ef0)
    at kernel/qeventloop_unix.cpp:578
#29 0xb652c0f9 in QEventLoop::processEvents (this=0x8173ef0, flags=4)
    at kernel/qeventloop_x11.cpp:383
#30 0xb65a8ce5 in QEventLoop::enterLoop (this=0x8173ef0)
    at kernel/qeventloop.cpp:198
#31 0xb65a8c00 in QEventLoop::exec (this=0x8173ef0)
    at kernel/qeventloop.cpp:145
#32 0xb6590fc5 in QApplication::exec (this=0xbfbc4040)
    at kernel/qapplication.cpp:2758
#33 0x08060ef5 in main ()
Comment 1 Matej Cepl 2006-06-23 02:28:15 UTC
Isn't this bug of my bug 127863?
Comment 2 Sebastian Held 2006-06-23 08:16:50 UTC
Yes, I think you're right. I'm wondering, why I missed that during my bug search...
How to flag this one as a duplicate?
Comment 3 Ismail Onur Filiz 2006-06-23 19:15:36 UTC
I can mark it duplicate, thanks. The reason you didn't come across that bug is, attached backtraces cannot be searched into, they need to be pasted.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 127863 ***