> >>> (gdb) bt
> >>> #0  0x5d168 in _catclose ()
> >>> #1  0x5cc00 in _catopen ()
> >>> #2  0x5c640 in __strerror ()
> >>> #3  0x58d50 in strerror ()
> 
> > I don't think we can trust this stacktrace.  _catopen() doesn't call
> > _catclose().
> 
> Does it perhaps call a static routine that got loaded above _catclose
> and below the next global symbol?  I've seen misleading names in stack
> traces for that reason often enough....

Good idea.  I'll check it out.

	--jtc