Talkback for article: 343, July2004

Why does this not work!? How to find and fix faults in Linux applications.

Back to:

From: Paweł Pałucha [ date: 2004-07-07 ]
And dont' forget about valgrind! Sometimes with memory problems gdb cannot catch the real problem - just consequences, many lines of code after the error. Valgrind always shows the problem when it really appears and can also signal other faults - jump depending on unitialized value, bad params for syscall, memory leaks and more. Runing program under valgrind is easy - just write 'valgrind program_name arguments'. Of course, there are also many options ;-). Happy debugging!
From: Hanprog [ date: 2004-07-10 ]
Very good article thank you for this work this is a very actual article!!!
From: Oliver Ebert [ date: 2004-07-14 ]
Very interesting article. Keep up your good work.
From: Navin Singh <navin_rathore(at)> [ date: 2004-07-15 ]
Very nice article. I always thought how one could work with the core dump. It is very easy and must for easy debugging.

From: Randy Kramer <rhkramer(at)> [ date: 2004-07-20 ]
Excellent article for my stage of Linux involvement -- well written and a topic that I hadn't seen covered before for the Linux newbie.

I have, however, found a few grammatical / English oversights that could be corrected for increased clarity (imho):

* IIUC, the sentence "It does however not work only with the core file." is intended to mean "it requires more than the core file to work". (Rather than "it can work with the core file or some alternatives to the core file".) I think this would be more clear if the word "only" was moved to after the "with" ("It does however not work with only the core file.") or rephrased more dramatically.

* "Lets" ("OK, lshref is the program that was crashing so lets load it into gdb.") should be "let's" as it is a contraction for "let us".

There may have been others, but the first jumped out at me because I had to read the sentence twice to guess what was really meant.

I am neither a professional nor an expert writer or editor, but I would be willing to do some "final" proofreading of articles before publishing to help catch and eliminate similar oversights. Let me know if you are interested.

Randy Kramer

PS: I hope I haven't left too many errors in my own writing -- I'm usually better at spotting errors in other people's work than my own (or my own after it has set for a while and I'm trying to reunderstand what I was trying to say originally). What can I say, it's a form of laziness. But, my real point is, it's easier for a reader who is trying to understand the subject to spot lack of clarity than it is for either the original author or someone who is simply proofreading without a need to understand the subject matter.
From: Guido Socher [ date: 2004-07-20 ]
Hello Randy,
thanks for the corrections. I really appreciate your help.

From: cask <g_j_zhou(at)> [ date: 2004-11-11 ]
How to find Segment Fault in multi-thread?
Our application has many threads (more than 40),sometimes,it crashed and ended with Segment Falut,how can we find it?wen has checked the core file,but the postion that crashed is not programming error?how can I debug such a program.
From: jens [ date: 2005-01-05 ]
Beginners question: I've reproduced the easy core dump example and it stopped with a segmentation fault but unfortunately no core dump was written on my installation (SuSE 9.1), so how can I teach my system to write core dumps on such occasions or is it a kernel setting?
Thanks in advance. jens (BTW: nice article.)
From: Tom [ date: 2005-01-05 ]
Hi Jens,
the article mentions already the answer your question:

"Some shells provide facilities for controlling whether core files are written. Under bash, for example, the default behavior is not to write core files at all. In order to enable core files, you should use the command:

# ulimit -c unlimited"
From: Sima [ date: 2006-01-23 ]
Good intro!
From: Stephanie [ date: 2006-07-12 ]
Really cool article- thank you! I've always wondered how that stuff worked.

11 talkbacks

Due to the increased amount of web spam we have deciced to removed the talkback posting possibility. You can read old talkbacks but you can no longer post new ones.

Back to

Please contact webmaster(at) if you have any questions with regards to this talkback

lftalkback version 3.10