Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.rmit.EDU.AU!news.unimelb.EDU.AU!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!news.sdsmt.edu!nntp.uac.net!news.tufts.edu!blanket.mitre.org!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!news.reference.com!cnn.nas.nasa.gov!win126.nas.nasa.gov!newhouse From: newhouse@win126.nas.nasa.gov (Paul Newhouse) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc Subject: Re: Signal 11 Date: 29 May 1996 09:12:49 GMT Organization: NAS Lines: 21 Message-ID: <4oh4eh$icn@cnn.nas.nasa.gov> References: <nD356D43A@longacre.demon.co.uk> <jrvalverde-2705961902450001@b12mc6.cnb.uam.es> NNTP-Posting-Host: win126.nas.nasa.gov In article <nD356D43A@longacre.demon.co.uk>, searle@longacre.demon.co.uk (Michael Searle) wrote: > Does processes exiting on signal 11 always mean bad hardware (probably > memory or mainboard), or can they be caused by other things (like buggy > executables)? I have had them occasionally, but mostly on new software I > hadn't tried before. I have never had gcc failing (and I have done several ... I disabled on-chip caching and this problem stopped. Maybe it's related to problems in the hardware being driven to hard BUT, this stopped the problem on two systems P133, P100. Good luck, Paul -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- All views, opinions and statements are my own. They are not necessarily those of any employer, client or associate. If you want their opinion you should ask them. *8^)