In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kai Henningsen writes: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Alan Dorman) wrote on 29.03.96 in <m0u2f>[EMAIL >PROTECTED]>: >> So, I've not changed the hardware, and I'm excercising it more than I >> was previously (keeping the load above 6, mostly), and yet I see no >> SIG11s, even during the parallel compilations. That would tend to >> cast significant doubt on the common assertion that SIG11 = hardware >> problem, no?
>You have *one* case where the reason *may* be something different. How else can you explain the fact that I tried _several_ times to compile a single file (conmakehash.c), and got SIG11s until I reinstalled GCC, at which point it worked? Did my hardware magically get better? Or, could it be that it was a corrupt executable? And if it was, in this instance, a corrupt executable, how can you assert that doesn't cast doubt on the commonly-held wisdom that _every_ SIG11 is a RAM error? I'm not saying that RAM's not suspect---I would be a fool to try and pretend that I know more than Bruce, who obviously has the smarts to play with this stuff at a much deeper hardware level than I---just that I think the assertion that it's _always_ RAM is wrong. >On the other hand, there are at least thousands of cases where it >*clearly* was a hardware problem - hardware fiddling made it go away. >Apply the math yourself. Oh, come now, unless you can document your assertion of "at least thousands of cases where it *clearly* was a hardware problem", "Applying the math" hardly matters because your data is suspect. As far as your obvious disagreement with my last paragraph, I think it's because I didn't make the point strongly enough in my first paragraph that I don't doubt some SIG11 issues are RAM related but that I object to >the current trend of automatically classifing every single SIG11 as >indicative of bad memory Would you have had as much problem with my last paragraph if I had said, "That would tend to cast significant doubt on the common assertion that a SIG11 in GCC can _always_ be inextricably linked to a hardware problem, no?" Mike. -- "Don't let me make you unhappy by failing to be contrary enough...."
