Seg 11 in GCC
Dear all,
I have a hard time believing that RAM goes bad as much as you guys/gals
claim. Nor do I really believe this would happen with modern machines.
Yes GCC is a memory hog (though they are trying to fix this). If you
encounter a memory hardware error I think your machine probably would
not have booted in the first place.
Under GCC 2.6.3 there are certain versions of the kernel that will not
compile but this has nothing to do with bad memory. Under GCC 2.7.0 you
are more likely have been illegally mixing ELF and a.out object files or
libraries.
If you guys/gals REALLY believe you have bad RAM. Please feel free to
send me all your "bad memory" (simms only please) where your only
symptom is a Seg fault in gcc. Send RAM to:
Glenn Bily
338B Reynolds WCU
Cullowhee, NC 28723
I need the money.
PS. I do not read this mailing list regularly. Please email your
responses to gb2187@wcuvax1.wcu.edu
On Tue, 26 Mar 1996, Mike Orr wrote:
> There is a Signal 11 FAQ on the web, believe it or not, which goes
> into great detail about this problem. However, I lost the URL.
> Does anybody have it?
All I got in terms of faqs is the gcc-faq, which says:
Gcc is probably the biggest memory hog you're likely to run on your
machine and it will surely eat up a lot of your RAM. Usually a fatal
signal 11 will mean some sort of parity errors in your RAM or other
hardware faults. I had this once when `cc1' got corrupted due to a
race condition and bad blocks on my hard disk. There have also been
reports that overheating chips, (not french fries), can also produce
such errors. And watch for poor IDE controller/drive combos that
are being run faster than the standard 8MHz AT bus clock. These
can give the same errors by causing corruption of the swap space.
Usually, a signal 11 (segmentation violation) means that a process
tried to access memory out of its process space, or tried to write
into a read-only location. Sometimes, this signal is caused by
software bugs, not by hardware faults (or your system would hang
repeatedly, because the same thing happened to the kernel). With
gcc 2.3.3, some people could reproduce a lot of "signal 11"'s.
> One of the points in the FAQ is that DOS programs are not very
> demanding on the hardware, while Linux, especially gcc, pushes the
> hardware to its limits. In that sense, one of the side effects of
> gcc is that it is a good memory tester.
Except that more than memory is tested. Quite a few hardware defects
(and misconfigurations) can cause a signal-11 :(
------------------------------------------------------------------------
# sbolt@xs4all.nl # Steven Bolt # popular science monthly KIJK #
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reply to: