1 |
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:36 AM, Michael Mol <mikemol@×××××.com> wrote: |
2 |
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Grant <emailgrant@×××××.com> wrote: |
4 |
>>> The gcc update just failed to compile on one of my systems with a |
5 |
>>> segfault, but then succeeded after trying again even though I didn't |
6 |
>>> change anything. Does that indicate a hardware problem for sure? |
7 |
>>> Should I run memtester? Any other tests to run? Nothing in dmesg. |
8 |
>>> |
9 |
>>> - Grant |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> Might be.....might be nothing. Maybe a stray neutrino hit your |
13 |
>> processor at just the wrong instant. ;-) |
14 |
>> |
15 |
>> More likely i my mind is some little corner condition in the software |
16 |
>> running on your system. I've had the same thing happen many times |
17 |
>> actually, and actually a few more times since I started playing with |
18 |
>> your /etc/make.conf -j/-l values which push the system a little |
19 |
>> harder. |
20 |
> |
21 |
> Whenever I get build failures with the load-adaptive MAKEOPTS and |
22 |
> EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS, I check the build log to see if it's relatively |
23 |
> obvious that something was depended upon before it was built. If so, I |
24 |
> file a bug. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Happens every month or so, for me. |
27 |
> |
28 |
|
29 |
There are log files? You're telling me I should read them? Gawd, |
30 |
pretty soon you're gonna try to make a real admin of me instead of |
31 |
just the oblivious happy home user that I am... ;-) |
32 |
|
33 |
Good inputs. Thanks! |
34 |
|
35 |
Cheers, |
36 |
Mark |