Etaoin Shrdlu wrote:
On Thursday 30 November 2006 07:56, Vladimir G. Ivanovic wrote:
Let's take a poll.
1. Have you seen this error message in an emerge?
Yes, several times.
2. Have you subsequently identified a hardware problem, fixed the
hardware problem, and have not seen the message since?
Yes. 99% of the times it was bad RAM (verified with memtest86).
Of course, for trivial emerges a subsequent emerge completed fine, but
the first failure put me on the alert.
3. Have you re-run the emerge and not seen the message in a while
(please indicate how long "a while" is.)
For me, "a while" is "since fixing the hardware problem".
BTW, do you know portage/emerge/make/whatever knows that the problem
is not reproducible?
If, all other things being equal, a subsequent attempt at the same
operation does not exhibit the problem, or fails differently, there's a
good chance that the problem is not reproducible.
Interesting responses from 3 people. But ...
I have done nothing to my hardware and I've seen this error, oh, a
half a dozen times, the last time 3 months (?) ago. I ran memtest when
I installed new memory, and it did not report problems even when run
for hours. And I do not get random segfaults with other programs.
Finally, I don't think my hardware fixed itself.
Given all of this, my suspicion is that these errors are software
bugs, not hardware problems.
The other thing that I don't really believe is the part about "this
bug not being reproducible" as reported by portage/emerge/make/gcc. I
don't recall any evidence that the emerge that actually tried the
compilation again and /succeeded/. (Why then error out rather than
print a warning message like, "Compilation retry succeeded on
subsequent attempt; hardware problem suspected.") So, my suspicion
that the commentary is bogus; but I believe the part about "internal
compiler error: Segfault".
--- Vladimir
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
