| 1 |
On 2015-08-21, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Earlier I saw segfaults in gcc, and another poster pointed it out. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> When gcc segfaults, it is always suspicious mostly because the compiler |
| 6 |
> is an app where we know the devs take extraordinary measures to prevent it. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> The most common cause is faulty hardware (most often memory) as gcc |
| 9 |
> tends to use all of it in ways no other app does. The usual procedure |
| 10 |
> at this point is to run memtest for an extended period - say 48 |
| 11 |
> hours, or even 72 for an older slow machine. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
That is definitely good advice. I've run into this situation several |
| 14 |
times. A machine had bad RAM that didn't seem to cause any problems |
| 15 |
under "normal" operation. But, when trying to compile something large |
| 16 |
like gcc, I would see non-repeatable segfaults (it wouldn't always |
| 17 |
segfault at the exact same point). In those cases, I could often run |
| 18 |
memtest for several passes and not see an error. But, _eventually_ |
| 19 |
ramtest would catch it. Run memtest for a few days. Really. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Grant Edwards grant.b.edwards Yow! I'm having an |
| 23 |
at EMOTIONAL OUTBURST!! But, |
| 24 |
gmail.com uh, WHY is there a WAFFLE |
| 25 |
in my PAJAMA POCKET?? |
Archives