69058 - Segfault on startup

Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 41057

(SeaMonkey :: General, defect)

Description

[Bob McElrath]

Stack backtrace:
#0  0x40684834 in gdk_input_device_new () from /usr/lib/libgdk-1.2.so.0
(gdb) where
#0  0x40684834 in gdk_input_device_new () from /usr/lib/libgdk-1.2.so.0
#1  0x4068537d in gdk_input_common_init () from /usr/lib/libgdk-1.2.so.0
#2  0x40685f5d in gdk_input_init () from /usr/lib/libgdk-1.2.so.0
#3  0x40671ae9 in gdk_init_check () from /usr/lib/libgdk-1.2.so.0
#4  0x405c880e in gtk_init_check () from /usr/lib/libgtk-1.2.so.0
#5  0x405c8cef in gtk_init () from /usr/lib/libgtk-1.2.so.0
#6  0x40500065 in NSGetModule () from
/usr/local/mozilla/components/libwidget_gtk.so
#7  0x40475a42 in nsJSUtils::mCachedSecurityManager ()
   from /usr/local/mozilla/components/libnsappshell.so
#8  0x804dbc2 in JS_PushArguments ()
#9  0x804e595 in JS_PushArguments ()
#10 0x40258fd1 in __libc_start_main (main=0x804e468 <JS_PushArguments+12460>,
argc=1, 
    ubp_av=0xbffff70c, init=0x804af1c <_init>, fini=0x8053d84 <_fini>, 
    rtld_fini=0x4000e254 <_dl_fini>, stack_end=0xbffff704)
    at ../sysdeps/generic/libc-start.c:118

Will someone who can interpret this backtrace assign this to the proper
component?  I'm not sure if it should be Javascript engine, or some XP
Toolkit...

I've seen this segfault three times now, most recently with the 0.8 builds from
2/14/2001.  I've seen it on 2 architectures (alpha, x86), both running linux.

Comment 1

[Boris Zbarsky [:bzbarsky]]

Bob, you have write permissions to the mozilla install directory, right? 
(otherwise this is bug 41057, most likely)

Comment 2

[Bob McElrath]

I do not have write permissions to the moz directory.  I agree this is probably
bug 41057.  I am now unable to reproduce it, which would be consistent with the
"segfaults about 50% of the time" comment for 41057.

In the past I have manually run regxpcom and regchrome as root in the install
directory, which seemed to fix the problem (and then run moz as a regular user).
 This time, however, that didn't work.  I don't know if this is of interest or
not.  Presumably 41057 will be fixed someday and this won't be an issue anyway.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 41057 ***