Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yeshua.marcam.com!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!pitt!w2xo!durham
From: durham@w2xo.pgh.pa.us (Jim Durham)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.bugs
Subject: gcc bug on FreeBSD replies posting
Keywords: replies FreeBSD gcc bug
Message-ID: <11@w2xo.pgh.pa.us>
Date: 16 Dec 93 04:11:18 GMT
Lines: 94
Here is my original posting about the gcc bug.
>Gcc crashes with signal 10 and signal 11. These are "BUS ERROR"
>and "SEGMENTATION VIOLATION". There seems to be no logical pattern to
>these occurences. Sometimes , while compiling a particular C
>source file, gcc will die with signal 10, the, upon trying again on the
>same source file, it will die with signal 11, then , on another try, it
>will compile. Sounds like an unitialized pointer somewhere in gcc, for
>a guess. Anyone else had this problem?
And here are the answers I received. Thanks to all who replied.
(Lots of stuff deleted here, the answers and enough context to figure
out what is going on (hopefully) remain.........
******************************************************************************
From: csshah@sunvis1.vislab.olemiss.edu (Viren R. Shah)
I'm having the same problem with gcc (i'm running FreeBSD-current). I
figure that my sources got messed up when i tried to upgrade -- and
now some of it is prob. with shared libs (thats a wild guess) -- i
checked all the binaries but they seem to be ok. So, i haven't a clue
:-(
From: combssf@salem.ge.com (Stephen F. Combs)
Jim,
I had the same kind of problems (random sig 10's & 11's) and went
bannanas trying to find the problem. It turned out to be a defective
cache chip on my motherboard (If you can, try disabling cache and then
rerunning the compile(s). When I did that everything ran to
completion, albet a tad slow!). When I sent the m/b back to the
manufacturer, they at first said there was NO problem (upon
questioning, they had used a DOS based memory testing program which
DIDN'T fully exersize the cache). When they put the m/b on an
IN-Circuit board tester, the cache failed big-time!
From: csshah@sunvis1.vislab.olemiss.edu (Viren R. Shah)
>
>Hello Viren,
>
>I got two answers back so far on the gcc problem. Both say that
>this occurs with a 4 meg system but goes away at 8 megs.
>
thanx. However, since the system i'm running FreeBSD on has 16M of
RAM, i doubt that that's the reason my system isn't working :-( I
asked on the freebsd-mailing list, and no one seems to be able to
figure out my problem, so as a last resort i'm prob. gonna reinstall
the binaries and source trees (hoping that the prob. was caused by
something that i did wrong when updating the sources -- tho i doubt
that.
>Now, since BSD has virtual memory and demand paging, I wonder
>why that would be?
>
It's a bug in the FreeBSD. i think are going to fix it in the next
release, but you might wanna ask around.
From max.IN-Berlin.DE!berry@methan.chemie.fu-berlin.de Mon Dec 13 03:25:49 1993
On a 4MB machine of mine I have also seen this problem. After upgrading
this machine to 16MB all went well. My other 16MB and 8MB machines never
had problems like this (i486 and i386+i387 machines).
--
Stefan (berry@max.IN-Berlin.DE)
From cg@FIMP01.fim.uni-linz.ac.at Wed Dec 15 01:09:21 1993
Hello Jim!
I think it's a bug and not a feature of gcc and/or the OS. This bug occured
the first time to me when I compiled gcc 1.40 (with Interactive's ISC 3.2).
I think it's a bug in the intel part of the compiler, as all versions of
gcc work on our ULTRIX machines; but we have troubles on all PCs with *BSD.
If you'll receive further information about this bug, please let me know
about it!
Many thanks,
Christian.
From: jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Are you running on a 4MB system? FreeBSD 1.0 has known problems with
4MB systems. Your solution is to wait for 1.1, or get another 4MB
of memory! :-)
Jordan
From: nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu (Nate Williams)
How much memory do you have? If you have more than 4MB, this sounds like
a bad motherboard/cache problem.