> On 05/03/2012 12:55 PM, Timothy Pearson wrote:
>>> On 05/03/2012 07:38 AM, David C. Rankin wrote:
>>>> On 05/03/2012 01:53 AM, Mag. Dr. Nikolaus Klepp wrote:
>>>>> This might be a stupid question, but did you try to run kwirte with
>>>>> valgrind?
>>>>>
>>>>> Nik
>>>>
>>>> There are no stupid questions when it comes to "did I do something?"
>>>> The
>>>> answer
>>>> is probably no... I'm a great monkey on this side of the keyboard, but
>>>> I'm not a
>>>> career developer, so you guys that have ideas of what needs to be
>>>> done,
>>>> just ask
>>>> and I can carry it out on this end. I'll give valgrind a go and let
>>>> you
>>>> know as
>>>> well as the g++ command suggested by /dev/ammo42.
>>>>
>>>
>>> OK,
>>>
>>>   What tool in valgrind is the one we want? I tried cachegrind and that
>>> didn't
>>> produce anything:
>> <snip>
>>
>> I would use the default memchecker tool, as my initial guess would be
>> memory corruption based on the widely varied backtraces.
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>
> Tim, Doc, will do,
>
>   I should have more time this evening to work with valgrind. I have
> little
> familiarity with it, so I'll just run it successively with the various
> tools and
> post any output I get.
>
>   Any other tests you can think of, just let me know.
>

Just make sure you have the debugging symbols installed so that we can get
line numbers, and that you have compiled from either the latest GIT head
or a recent revision, preferably one with the gcc 4.7 fixes in place.

It would be a good idea to post the valgrind output to the bug report.

Tim