From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 15:26:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 15:26:28 -0400 Received: from femail27.sdc1.sfba.home.com ([24.254.60.17]:13565 "EHLO femail27.sdc1.sfba.home.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Mon, 13 Aug 2001 15:26:23 -0400 From: Josh McKinney Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:26:09 -0500 To: Nicholas Knight , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: strange gcc crashes... Message-ID: <20010813142609.A5700@home.com> Mail-Followup-To: josh, Nicholas Knight , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <01081305560700.00343@c779218-a> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <01081305560700.00343@c779218-a> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > >> so it seems to me like kernel problem... > > > > > >why is that? I've never seen a sig11 from production >code > > >that wasn't caused by flakey ram. in fact, your >descriptions > > >are a perfect example of similar hardware problems. > > > Synthetic tests are never as good as a real good gcc run, I'd *never* > trust them over the indications given by attempting to compile the kernel > or something big like XFree86. I agree. I had my computer mildy overclocked for a little while. Everything ran just great, I could compile kernels, quake3 timedemo for two days, etc. All was well until I tried to compile gcc itself and I kept getting random errors. I finally opened up the case and bumped it back down, and like magic it compiled just fine. So my advice would be to don't overclock. Josh