Memory test passes.
Same compile error on first laptop.
So back to the second laptop goes the hard drive. :-)
Wayne Sallee
wa...@waynesallee.com
On 09/25/2015 11:13 AM, Wayne Sallee wrote:
Starting clean did not help.
That's the first compiling that I've done since moving the hard drive to a different computer. I'll put the hard drive
back in the previous computer and see if it compiles.
The first computer is AMD. And I'll do a memtest on the second computer. I know that the second computer has a bad
second video card that I disabled in BIOS. But of course things like that can be the motherboard, making the other
parts look bad.
Wayne Sallee
wa...@waynesallee.com
On 09/25/2015 09:41 AM, Wayne Sallee wrote:
Thanks for all the posts.
It's an Intel processor. I tried recompiling multiple times, but did not try cleaning the source tree, or
re-uncompressing the tar.
Should I run make clean, or make mrproper after deleting the directory, and
uncompressing the tar?
Wayne Sallee
wa...@waynesallee.com
On 09/24/2015 10:07 PM, Ken Moffat wrote:
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 09:46:37PM -0400, Michael Shell wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2015 01:06:12 +0100
Ken Moffat<zarniwh...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
An ICE (internal compiler error) means something *apparently* went
wrong in your compiler. On one of my machines (an AMD phenom - they
are notorious for this), building with -j4 often provokes this sort
of error, particularly when building a new kernel.
Ken,
Do you have any knowledge about how the newer AMD processors
(Phenom II, A10, etc.) hold up in this regard?
My phenom is actually AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor
I know of one person, who sometimes posts on lkml, who also has a
similar processor and now never goes beyond make -j4.
My own A4, when it was alive, showed no problems (apart from only
having two cores). My A10 (kaveri) is fine, and there I use make
-j5 because it has an SSD. So, from my experience only the Phenom
is a problem.
OTOH, in many things they are slower than my SandyBridge i3, and in
particular an SBU (single threaded) is much slower - some of that,
but not all, might be because the acpi cpufreq governor works less
well on AMD CPUs than the old K10 code did.
As to the problem of the OP, is it possible that gcc was not complied
for the correct target such that in unusual circumstances it really
will attempt to execute an unsupported CPU instruction?
If a reattempt is made to build atk (after cleaning the source tree)
does the exact same error occur at the same place? If so, a hardware
problem is less likely.
Yes, those both sound sensible.
Another possibility is some kind of stack corruption (caused by
a bug in gcc or one of the libraries it depends on) where data
is somehow overwriting exec code.
For that, I hope not ;-) That does sound suspiciously like what the
phenom appears to do on its bad days. But we don't know what CPU the
OP was using.
ĸen
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
