Re: Seg 11 in GCC
gb2187@wcuvax1.wcu.edu (Glenn Bily) wrote on 31.03.96 in <clLgJGZz0001Q2kWB1@gvb>:
> > >> versions of GCC. I really want to know how many people >you are talking
> >
> > >Well, judging from news and mailing lists, *nearly all* >complaints about
> > >gcc sig 11 are eventually solved by tweaking the hardware.
>
> Um. You need to be CAREFUL about reading news and mailing lists (even
> this one). Some of these people may have changed other things along the
> way.
That should apply the same to the cases where hardware fiddling helped,
and those where software fiddling helped.
> > >Well, I've been "in the industry" for about 5 years, and I've >seen about
> > >two dozen SIMMs fail _at least_. And lots more cases >where changing wait
> > >states helped. And just about none of them was found by >the on-board
> > RAM test.
>
> More likely you had incompatible ram or you been pulling RAM out of the
> garbage at a manufacturing facility. It is more likely that you MAY have
> had 1 bad simm and a chronic case of incompatible ram. Or you
> improperly diagnosed the problem.
Well, in the context of the current discussion, that difference is
obviously immaterial - it's still a problem with the memory hardware.
On the other hand, when changing one SIMM against another one of the same
model helps, then *I* consider that a case of a bad SIMM, not a case of
misdiagnose or incompatibility.
> > >(I've also seen at least half a dozen 486's with broken >on-chip-cache,
> > >and double that with broken external cache. Simply disabling >the cache
> > >in question made any problems go away. It's so bad that >nowadays, this
> > >is my first reaction to strange problems.)
> >
> > >The state of the chip industry is horrible. There's a simple >reason -
> > >very, very slim margins.
>
> Muhahahaha
You are of course the really big guru who knows everything better than
just about anybody else on the planet.
All the facts you have been able to present here is that some unknown
friend of yours told you something.
Well, that will certainly convince everybody that you know everything.
NOT.
> > >[1] I tended to view viruses as something that gets talked >about, but
> > >doesn't really happen, as well - until I got that job. I still >haven't
> > >seen a single virus on my home system, but at work I've >seen lots and
> > >lots of infections - mostly boot sector viruses.
>
> I agree with you here. Viruses are mostly talk and happen little.
If that's what you think, you most certainly don't agree with me.
I think this will be my last reply to you. You don't seem interested in
any facts that might confuse your preconceptions.
MfG Kai
Reply to: