Re: Segmentation Fault
James:
I am running the 2.2.10 kernel with a 68LC040 on a Motoroal
MVME-162fx-p2.
It works fine. I had a problem with the "snoop" line, and the cache was
broken,
but that is resolved. It works really well, for a 25mhz clock I am
showing
18 bogomips. The fpu emulation is missing the transcendental functions,
but none of the standard packages complain.
Thanks again to Nick and Michael, Richard, and many others for all this
good work.
James Waterhouse wrote:
>
> Jordan Curzon wrote:
>
> > I have installed slink 2.1.9.2 on a Performa 637CD with a 68LC040 chip. I
> > have read about problems with it and that somethings don't work. When I try
> > to run adduser it reports a segmentation fault and quits the program. It
> > also does the same thing with varius other progs.
>
> I also have the same problems but I have installed potato. My machine is an LS
> 630 with the awful 68LC040 chip. I'm just wondering if anyone knows whether the
> float emulation code is working correctly in the kernel. Does anyone have any
> first hand knowledge of this?? When I us ls it segfaults at random, is this to
> be expected with a faulty chip? Is it that the emulation never works or that it
> does not work consistently? Any info would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Thanks,
> James
>
> p.s. if the emulation does not work does this mean the kernel will not boot?
> Should gunzip work?
>
> --
> James Waterhouse | Tel: +1.(514)-287-1166
> MathEngine Canada Inc. | Fax: +1.(514)-287-3360
> 465 McGill Street, First Floor | http://www.mathengine.com
> Montreal, Qc H2Y 2H1 CANADA | james.waterhouse@mathengine.com
>
> Have you had some chicken cheese today?
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-68k-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
John K. Stevenson, Motorola Tempe. (602) 438-3961 (FAX 602-438-6140)
JStevens@phx.mcd.mot.com Tempe. AZ
Pager: 1738917@skytel.com, 800-759-8888 pin 1738917
Reply to: