Bug 587398 – [abrt] crash in ddd-3.3.12-5.fc12: Process /usr/bin/ddd was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)

Bug 587398 - [abrt] crash in ddd-3.3.12-5.fc12: Process /usr/bin/ddd was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)

Summary:	[abrt] crash in ddd-3.3.12-5.fc12: Process /usr/bin/ddd was killed by signal ...

Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 584553

Aliases:	None

Product:	Fedora
Classification:	Fedora
Component:	ddd (Show other bugs)
Sub Component:
Version:	12
Hardware:	x86_64 Linux

Priority	low Severity medium
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Assigned To:	Gwyn Ciesla
QA Contact:	Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Docs Contact:

URL:
Whiteboard:	abrt_hash:ac2677d9d18061856ee047f38aa...
Keywords:

Depends On:
Blocks:
	Show dependency tree / graph

Reported:	2010-04-29 15:36 EDT by Juan M. Arenas
Modified:	2010-05-25 05:04 EDT (History)
CC List:	1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed:	2010-05-25 05:04:23 EDT
Type:	---
Regression:	---
Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---

Attachments	(Terms of Use)
File: backtrace (16.62 KB, text/plain) 2010-04-29 15:36 EDT, Juan M. Arenas	no flags	Details
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Groups: None (edit)

Description Juan M. Arenas 2010-04-29 15:36:35 EDT

abrt 1.0.9 detected a crash.

architecture: x86_64
Attached file: backtrace
cmdline: ddd
component: ddd
executable: /usr/bin/ddd
kernel: 2.6.32.11-99.fc12.x86_64
package: ddd-3.3.12-5.fc12
rating: 4
reason: Process /usr/bin/ddd was killed by signal 6 (SIGABRT)
release: Fedora release 12 (Constantine)

Comment 1 Juan M. Arenas 2010-04-29 15:36:37 EDT

Created attachment 410214 [details]
File: backtrace

Comment 2 Karel Klíč 2010-05-25 05:04:23 EDT


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 584553 ***

Comment 3 Karel Klíč 2010-05-25 05:04:23 EDT

This bug appears to have been filled using a buggy version of ABRT, because
it contains a backtrace which is a duplicate of backtrace from bug #584553.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.