Re: Seg 11 in GCC
In message <[🔎] m0u2NcT-00063bC@mongo.pixar.com>, Bruce Perens writes:
>From: Glenn Bily <gb2187@wcuvax1.wcu.edu>
>> 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.
>I've seen these failures in my own system and have diagnosed them as being
>RAM related. They went away when I changed the RAM.
With all due respect to the many (many!) people here who know more
about gcc/linux/Unix/whatever than I, I feel obligated to say that
while occasional SIG11 problems may have been RAM related (and I do
have some experience with memory problems---I've upgraded Atari STs by
hand-soldering DIPs piggy-back on existing memory. Not somerwhere you
want a cold-solder joint), the current trend of automatically
classifing every single SIG11 as indicative of bad memory is simply
hogwash. I base my statement on my experiences of 3/28 (yesterday).
I've got a brand new P150 here next to me, with 64MB RAM, a DPT F/W
SCSI-2 controller all running off a Fujitsu Fast (not Wide) SCSI-2
disk. I installed the Debian base system, and just enough to compile
a kernel, and then I tried to recompile. I got a SIG11s when trying
to compile conmakehash.c (during make dep). I reinstalled gcc,
conmakehash compiled fine, but I got SIG11s and vm errors. I
increased my swap space from 8MB (top claimed it wasn't swapping, why
would it need more), and I was down to just SIG11s.
Then I compiled a 1.3.80 kernel on another machine, reinstalled Debian
using 1.3.80, and can now do 'make -j zImage' (and there are few
things more amusing than watching top while this is happening, as your
entire screen will just _fill_ with gcc processes). I have done this
upwards of 20 times (11 minute kernel compiles are fun, too) in the
last 24 hours. Never seen a SIG11.
So, I've not changed the hardware, and I'm excercising it more than I
was previously (keeping the load above 6, mostly), and yet I see no
SIG11s, even during the parallel compilations. That would tend to
cast significant doubt on the common assertion that SIG11 = hardware
problem, no?
Mike.
--
"Don't let me make you unhappy by failing to be contrary enough...."
Reply to: