On Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Dâniel Fraga wrote: > On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:07:04 +0300 (EEST) > "Ilpo Järvinen" <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > ...as it would probably not be wise to make a full dump available (that it > > would contain every syscall). Alternatively, you can create one full dump > > for yourself and just grep the relevant parts. There may be need to strace > > more than one process (all dovecot related). > > While waiting for a stall, I was thinking here: is there any > chance it could be a bug generated by gcc 4.3? I saw the date gcc 4.3.0 > was released and it's just after 2.6.24 and before 2.6.25... > > I was using gcc 4.3.1 and now 4.3.2... but maybe I could try go > back to gcc 4.2.4 to test... That's one option. If you do that, you could try catching two flies at the same time by selecting something else than tickless. > Which version of gcc you developers are using? I guess that on x86 most use some recent/semi-recent by default but there are some with old as well, while the non-x86 archs tend to have more often a bit older gccs I guess. Anyway, if gcc did something wrong, it is still mostly correct, ie., there's just some race (which is likely non-corrupting even). And hitting that might not be very easy for some of the devs. -- i.
