*BSD News Article 69462


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.mel.connect.com.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!solaris.cc.vt.edu!news.mathworks.com!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!dispatch.news.demon.net!demon!jraynard.demon.co.uk!not-for-mail
From: james@jraynard.demon.co.uk (James Raynard)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Signal 11
Date: 26 May 1996 19:23:08 -0000
Organization: A FreeBSD Box
Lines: 25
Message-ID: <4oab2s$ch@jraynard.demon.co.uk>
References: <nD356D43A@longacre.demon.co.uk> <4o7hcp$8hk@dyson.iquest.net> <nD454577C@longacre.demon.co.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.demon.co.uk
X-NNTP-Posting-Host: jraynard.demon.co.uk

In article <nD454577C@longacre.demon.co.uk>,
Michael Searle <searle@longacre.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>I don't have any other PCs to test it on - does anyone know of any problems
>with sox or olvwm (the processes giving signal 11) or xperfmon++,
>xdaliclock, xterm, xfm (that I was running at the same time)?

Not as far as I know - a lot of people have been running these without
any problems. Your next paragraph gives a clue, though:-

>All of these are straight out of packages.  I am running a -O2 kernel, but I
>think one of the signal 11s was before I changed, although after I got rid
>of stuff I didn't need from GENERIC.

This is definitely not a good idea. There are known to be bugs in the
gcc i386 optimiser which cause bad code to be generated with the -O2
option.

While there are work-arounds, the default option of -O for the kernel
build is the recommended one.

-- 
James Raynard, Edinburgh, Scotland
jraynard@dial.pipex.com
james@jraynard.demon.co.uk