Re: [Help-gnunet] Major ouches

[Christian Grothoff]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 07 May 2003 02:13 am, Tom Barnes-Lawrence wrote:
> On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 07:39:33AM +0100, N. Durner wrote:
> > Try
> > ---
> > gdb gnunetd
> > run -d -L DEBUG
>
>  I could have sworn I'd tried running gnunet under gdb a few months
> back and had weird results, something about unknown signals.
> But mebbe that was the gtk client rather than gnunetd (as gnunetd
> didn't give me many problems back then).
>  I've just tried this now.
>
> > after the crash type
> > ---
> > ba
> > ---
> > and send the output.
>
>  Well, it doesn't seem to get this far under gdb: after the run
> command, it says (again) something about unknown signals, spawns
> 2 threads, and then is very very quiet. No network activity, and
> gnunet-stats cant connect. The processes still seem to be there,
> and gdb doesn't say anything more.
>
>  Did I have to pass some configure option for debugging symbols?
> The only time I've really used gdb was with my own (recent) program,
> that just used a Makefile (without autoconf).

Did you run it with "run -d" (the -d is kind of important). In order to get 
full debuging information, run "export CLAGS="-g" *before* ./configure; then 
recompile (make clean ; make install) and that should be it.

> > > So, is nobody else getting this level of flakiness?

I don't know of anyone. If you have some old gnunet.conf file lying around, 
that may cause some unknown trouble (which we should fix), but I doubt that 
that's the cause. The most likely thing I can come up with is that you have 
some old GNUnet libraries installed somewhere and that these are loaded by 
chance instead of the correct (0.5.3-compatible) ones. That would explain the 
crashing.  "locate libgnunet" and remove whatever files you find and then 
re-install, see if that helps. Oh, and the library-version conflict may also 
be quite confusing for gdb if it happens.

> > My gnunetd has an uptime of 13 days (the checkout was done before the
> > official 0.5.3)
> >
> > > Could it be because I tried using the berkeley db option?
> >
> > I'm using it, too.
>
>  Ah.
>  Is it possibly to do with the crypto stuff? Maybe everyone else has
> moved onto using libgcrypt and it's more stable than openssl??

Openssl is definitely much more stable (I'm still mostly using openssl). So 
that won't be the problem.

Christian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE+uUGh9tNtMeXQLkIRAjBVAJ9KbKY/qW1W1gFz9TLgzwrtqin+QgCfZlnw
Ap+S7GGTKr45Ir/Ca0SBWQA=
=Ldkh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----