Re: Seg 11 in GCC
mdorman@lot49.med.miami.edu (Michael Alan Dorman) wrote on 01.04.96 in <[🔎] m0u3jcN-00029EC@lot49.med.miami.edu>:
> In message <[🔎] m0u3Xxp-00062tC@mongo.pixar.com>, Bruce Perens writes:
> >I don't think thay anyone would argue that a failure in the kernel VM
> >system or a plain old software bug could cause the same error. In the
> >case of a failure in the VM system or an uninitialized memory bug you
> >might even see the failure happen in different places each time.
>
> Other people seem to be willing to argue just that. I think that's as
> foolish as the opposite suggestion that it's never RAM.
I've never seen anybody argue that it MUST be a RAM problem - only that
that's by far the most likely explanation, and thus the most likely
helpful suggestion is to look at possible sources of problems there.
> I'll even admit that RAM problems my be in the majority. But to deny
> the possiblity that a SIG11 is a software problem (as many seem to
> do), and therefore never consider where the bug might be, is to
Again, I've never seen anybody do that. And I've seen a lot of gcc sig 11
discussion.
However, I *have* seen lots of cases where someone said something on
Usenet along the lines of "I believe this is ...", "This is most likely
...", or similar stuff, and for some weird reason somebody else
interpreted this as "it cannot possibly be anything else". This is a
general Usenet problem.
Hell, I've seen people interpret questions as assertions! If there is a
possible way to misunderstand something, by shuffling words around and
changing some words to other words, someone on Usenet will surely do so.
I don't claim that any particular participant on this discussion does
something like that. I've just seen it happen far too often. It's pretty
frustrating.
MfG Kai
Reply to: