On Mon, 28 Jun 2004, Dinesh Nair wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Fred Wright wrote:
> > Did the "died" part include using a bad pointer? If not, it wouldn't
> > explain the SIGSEGV.
> no it didnt. the termination was a clean one, triggered by a alarm set for
> a read timeout. it still doesnt explain the SIGSEV. and other than one
> incident, no one's been able to reproduce that yet, iianm,
I recall seeing two posts that mentioned it (not counting quoted
versions), but not whether they were both from the same user.
Maybe beta versions should have coredumps enabled.