Re: Seg 11 in GCC
There are lots of explanations:
The seg faults in question are more likely caused by improperly
installing GCC or corrupted libraries. Or compiling new code on older
versions of GCC. I really want to know how many people you are talking
about. The fact is that RAM is solid state and the odds of it failure
are almost non-existant. (A collegue of mine who has been in the
industry for 35+ years says he has seen 1 RAM chip fail). You might want
to do a gcc -v <whatever> on the files that you are get seg faults on
to see exactly WHAT is seg faulting. Might not be the compiler but
rather the linker.
--Glenn
OS/2 is a whole different story. I'm not qualified to answer that.
> gb2187@wcuvax1.wcu.edu (Glenn Bily) wrote on 28.03.96 in <[🔎] ElKh2Vpz000141G0sk@gvb>:
>
> > 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.
>
> Then how do _you_ explain that about 99% of all "gcc got signall 11"
> problems can be solved by getting new RAM, changing waitstates, and
> similar actions?
>
> BTW, I've seen it with other software as well. For example, many, many
> people found out that their hardware was faulty when they switched to OS/2
> ...
>
> > 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:
>
> Oh well, I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell you ...
>
>
> MfG Kai
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Debian = Thptphh. Slackware 2.3/Redhat 2.1 = Woo Hoo!
Reply to: