Bug 80303 - launching amarok with one instance running crashes
Summary: launching amarok with one instance running crashes
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: amarok
Classification: Applications
Component: general (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Platform: unspecified Linux
: NOR crash
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Amarok Developers
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-04-25 13:47 UTC by Lou Greenwood
Modified: 2006-06-11 12:32 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:
Latest Commit:
Version Fixed In:

Attachments
Add an attachment

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Lou Greenwood 2004-04-25 13:47:49 UTC 
Version:           1.0 beta2 (using KDE KDE 3.2.2)
Installed from:    Unlisted Binary Package

when launching a second instance of amarok it crashes.

here's the output:

sh-2.05b$ amarok
[Loader::tryConnect()] connecting to /home/lou/.kde//socket-rubarb/amarok.loader_socket
amarok: [virtual void LoaderServer::newConnection(int)]
[amaroK loader] amaroK is already running. Transmitting command line arguments..
amarok: [virtual void LoaderServer::newConnection(int)]  received:
amarok: |amarok|
amarok: [void PlayerApp::handleLoaderArgs(QCString)] DESKTOP_STARTUP_ID:
amarok: [void PlayerApp::handleLoaderArgs(QCString)]  extracted string: amarok
amarokapp: kcmdlineargs.cpp:160: static void KCmdLineArgs::init(int, char**, const KAboutData*, bool): Assertion `argc == 0' failed.
KCrash: crashing... crashRecursionCounter = 2
KCrash: Application Name = amarok path = <unknown> pid = 7055
[amaroK loader] Loader exiting.
Comment 1 Stanislav Karchebny 2004-04-25 16:25:50 UTC 
Um, someone forgot KCmdLineArgs::reset() ?
Comment 2 Mark Kretschmann 2004-04-30 08:25:07 UTC 
I'm a bit puzzled about this one! We _do_ call KCmdLineArgs::reset().

berkus: any clue what's going on here?
Comment 3 Mark Kretschmann 2004-04-30 08:58:09 UTC 
I hope this is fixed now, but we need people to test it in beta3 for confirmation.
Comment 4 Mark Kretschmann 2004-05-16 10:44:27 UTC 
Is this report still valid for beta3?
Comment 5 Adeodato Simó 2004-06-02 12:52:45 UTC 
This is now fixed.
Comment 6 Adeodato Simó 2004-06-02 12:57:29 UTC 
* Adeodato Sim