Re: DAC960 and GCC
On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Wakko Warner wrote:
> > That's good news. For awhile, it wouldn't compile no matter what I
> > tried. I put the whole matter on the shelf back then because nobody was
> > complaining about it anyway :-)
>
> Well, I am =)
:-P Well, back then, my entire paying job revolved around making things
work on Alpha, so I had the time...now is different, but I'll try to make
some time soon to look into it further. All of us toolchain maintainers
were talking about the gcc 3.x transition coming around May, though, so I
may shelf it until then and, if the problem persists there, at least it'll
be easier to deal with since the code base won't be as old.
> You have to think too, this is an old fast wide scsi controller, not an
> ultra wide, u2w, not u160/u320... But hey, for free, do you complain? =)
Nope! In that case, and given your system details, those numbers are
quite impressive :-)
> me). it's an as1000a 4/266. hey, you can't beat the price!!!
Definitely not. Granted, it's not exactly the fastest or most modern
system in the world, but if it works, who cares, right? :-)
> I see. with 3.0.3, I saw tons of ECC errors. They aren't in the log so
> I can't paste them for you. (Now if someone says I have a hardware problem,
> I'll shoot you! >=)
Hehehehe....then I'll shut up :-P Seriously, though, it could be a
hardware problem, but it may not be worth it to fix it given your
machine. The errors hurt performance quite a bit, but if you're not
really using the system for something critical or loading it heavily, I
wouldn't worry much about it (most people that I know that have older
Alphas only use them for learning more about 64-bit programming or
something similarly light).
> Lab tests show that use of micro$oft causes cancer in lab animals
So THAT'S what happened to my brain! I was wondering why I had a hard
time remembering my early teens :-P
C
Reply to: