* Jim Woodruff ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > Eric Dorland wrote: > > >That's extremely fascinating. Now what's your point? > > Why the sarcasm? Are you saying kernel errors are normal.
I'm merely trying to shame you into submitting better bug reports. The kernel spews out various messages that can look like dire errors, but are actually quite normal. I'm not saying this is the case here, I don't know alpha well enough to comment. On some arches, unaligned accesses are just really slow, so the kernel warns you when they're going on, but completely non-fatal or detrimental. Please keep the bug address CCed in the future. > >Did Firefox fail to run? Did it behave crashily? Can you try > >recompiling it with -O rather than -O2 and see if that makes a > >difference? (Just change the OPTFLAG variable in the debian/rules > >file) > > No, it runs ok, that's why I selected "normal bug". I didn't compile it > at all. I installed a debian package. Sorry, I was asking if you *could* recompile it with -O and see if that changes anything, sometimes the gcc optimization is too aggressive. -- Eric Dorland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ICQ: #61138586, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1024D/16D970C6 097C 4861 9934 27A0 8E1C 2B0A 61E9 8ECF 16D9 70C6 -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GCS d- s++: a-- C+++ UL+++ P++ L++ E++ W++ N+ o K- w+ O? M++ V-- PS+ PE Y+ PGP++ t++ 5++ X+ R tv++ b+++ DI+ D+ G e h! r- y+ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
