Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-19 Thread Eric Anholt
On Mon, 2002-10-07 at 11:13, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Every so often, my X server locks up. It seems to be in a tight > loop, 95% user time, and making only these ktrace'able calls: > > 27069 XFree86 0.019988 PSIG SIGALRM caught handler=0x80d219c mask=0x0 code=0x0 > 27069 XFree86 0.39

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-09 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On Wed, 09 Oct 2002 14:27:45 +0300 Maxim Sobolev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > SIGFPE crashes still happed even on 2-weeks old kernel, but they are > much less frequent. I'll try to go back in time to 4-weeks old kernel > to see if it helps. As a data point... I still get signal 6, even without t

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-09 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > > Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > > > > Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > > > > > Maxim Sobolev writes: > > > > > > > > > > Between this, and the Type1 bezier font abort, the state of 5.0 on a > > > > > > desktop is very sorry indeed. My old alpha ru

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-08 Thread Michael Reifenberger
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Andrew Gallatin wrote: ... > Question: Did the "Bezier too big" stuff start when people upgraded > their X server port, or when they upgraded their kernel? (I just > started running -current on an x86 last week) I have a sneaking > suspicion that the fp context is not being sa

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-08 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > > > Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > > > Maxim Sobolev writes: > > > > > > > > Between this, and the Type1 bezier font abort, the state of 5.0 on a > > > > > desktop is very sorry indeed. My old alpha running -stable is far > > > > > more stable

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-08 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Maxim Sobolev wrote: > > Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > > > Maxim Sobolev writes: > > > > > > Between this, and the Type1 bezier font abort, the state of 5.0 on a > > > > desktop is very sorry indeed. My old alpha running -stable is far > > > > more stable. > > > > > > > > Sigh. > > > > > > A

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-08 Thread Maxim Sobolev
Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Maxim Sobolev writes: > > > > Between this, and the Type1 bezier font abort, the state of 5.0 on a > > > desktop is very sorry indeed. My old alpha running -stable is far > > > more stable. > > > > > > Sigh. > > > > Agreed. I could add that after recent kernel

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-08 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Alexander Leidinger writes: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:56:54 -0400 (EDT) > Andrew Gallatin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I'm going to downgrade sys/i386/i386/machdep.c to 1.539 now and have a > > > > look how the system behaves. > > > > > > Doesn't work, I still get signal 6. >

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-08 Thread Wesley Morgan
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002, Alexander Leidinger wrote: > > To fix signal 6, I think you need to rebuild your X server. > > Do you think I have to rebuild or do you know I have to rebuild? I've rebuilt several times. I'm guessing NO, since I still have the problems periodically. --

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-08 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 10:56:54 -0400 (EDT) Andrew Gallatin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm going to downgrade sys/i386/i386/machdep.c to 1.539 now and have a > > > look how the system behaves. > > > > Doesn't work, I still get signal 6. > > That won't fix signal 6. That will just fix the

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-08 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Alexander Leidinger writes: > On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:27:27 +0200 > Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm going to downgrade sys/i386/i386/machdep.c to 1.539 now and have a > > look how the system behaves. > > Doesn't work, I still get signal 6. That won't fix signal 6.

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-08 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 15:27:27 +0200 Alexander Leidinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm going to downgrade sys/i386/i386/machdep.c to 1.539 now and have a > look how the system behaves. Doesn't work, I still get signal 6. Bye, Alexander. -- Yes, I've heard of "decaf." What's your p

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-08 Thread Alexander Leidinger
On Tue, 8 Oct 2002 09:04:27 -0400 (EDT) Andrew Gallatin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Question: Did the "Bezier too big" stuff start when people upgraded > their X server port, or when they upgraded their kernel? (I just > started running -current on an x86 last week) I have a sneaking > suspicio

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-08 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Maxim Sobolev writes: > > Between this, and the Type1 bezier font abort, the state of 5.0 on a > > desktop is very sorry indeed. My old alpha running -stable is far > > more stable. > > > > Sigh. > > Agreed. I could add that after recent kernel updating I'm also often > observing XFre

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-08 Thread Vladimir B.
÷ Mon, 07.10.2002, × 22:13, Andrew Gallatin ÎÁÐÉÓÁÌ: > > Every so often, my X server locks up. It seems to be in a tight > loop, 95% user time, and making only these ktrace'able calls: > > 27069 XFree86 0.019988 PSIG SIGALRM caught handler=0x80d219c mask=0x0 code=0x0 > 27069 XFree86 0.

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-07 Thread Maxim Sobolev
On Mon, Oct 07, 2002 at 02:13:10PM -0400, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Every so often, my X server locks up. It seems to be in a tight > loop, 95% user time, and making only these ktrace'able calls: > > 27069 XFree86 0.019988 PSIG SIGALRM caught handler=0x80d219c mask=0x0 code=0x0 > 27069 XFr

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-07 Thread Andrew Gallatin
Wesley Morgan writes: > This sounds very similar to a problem I am seeing that does not result in > a fatal lockup, but rather several minutes of complete unresponsiveness. > It only seems to happen when Konqueror tries to autocomplete from the > location bar. > > I'm not really sure wha

Re: sorry state of Xserver in 5.0

2002-10-07 Thread Wesley Morgan
This sounds very similar to a problem I am seeing that does not result in a fatal lockup, but rather several minutes of complete unresponsiveness. It only seems to happen when Konqueror tries to autocomplete from the location bar. On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Andrew Gallatin wrote: > > Every so often, m