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