Your message dated Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:23:38 +0100
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#178790: gcc sig11 - no longer reproduced, hardware problem?
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 28 Jan 2003 16:35:00 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue Jan 28 10:34:50 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from res2.iguide.co.il (stalker.iGuide.co.il) [194.90.246.244] (root)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18dYhG-00026X-00; Tue, 28 Jan 2003 10:34:50 -0600
Received: from stalker.iGuide.co.il ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [127.0.0.1])
by stalker.iGuide.co.il (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) with ESMTP id
h0SGYkk9032087;
Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:34:46 +0200
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by stalker.iGuide.co.il (8.12.3/8.12.3/Debian -4) id h0SGYh4t032085;
Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:34:43 +0200
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Vassilii Khachaturov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: gcc: internal error - cpp0 got fatal signal 11 - cc -O3 poll.c from
perl5.8.0
X-Mailer: reportbug 1.50
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 18:34:43 +0200
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.8 required=5.0
tests=MSG_ID_ADDED_BY_MTA_3,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.41
X-Spam-Level:
Package: gcc
Version: 2:2.95.4-14
Severity: important
I was trying to locally build perl5.8.0 from the source.
The compilation bailed out as follows:
cp lib/IO/Seekable.pm ../../lib/IO/Seekable.pm
/home/vassilii/src/perl-5.8.0/miniperl "-I../../lib" "-I../../lib"
../../lib/ExtUtils/xsubpp -typemap ../../lib/ExtUtils/typemap IO.xs >
IO.xsc && mv IO.xsc IO.c
cc -c -fno-strict-aliasing -I/usr/local/include -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE
-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -DDEBIAN -O3 -DVERSION=\"1.20\"
-DXS_VERSION=\"1.20\" -fpic "-I../.." IO.c
cc -c -fno-strict-aliasing -I/usr/local/include -D_LARGEFILE_SOURCE
-D_FILE_OFFSET_BITS=64 -DDEBIAN -O3 -DVERSION=\"1.20\"
-DXS_VERSION=\"1.20\" -fpic "-I../.." poll.c
cc: Internal compiler error: program cpp0 got fatal signal 11
make[1]: *** [poll.o] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/home/vassilii/src/perl-5.8.0/ext/IO'
make: *** [lib/auto/IO/IO.so] Error 2
For the record, my cc is indeed gcc 2.95.4-14:
stalker:~> which cc
/usr/bin/cc
stalker:~> ls -l /usr/bin/cc
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Nov 8 13:27 /usr/bin/cc ->
/etc/alternatives/cc*
stalker:~> ls -l /etc/alternatives/cc
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 12 Nov 8 13:27
/etc/alternatives/cc -> /usr/bin/gcc*
stalker:~> dpkg -S /usr/bin/gcc
gcc: /usr/bin/gcc
When the optimization level is reduced from -O3 to -O2, the problem
doesn't happen. (Debian-shipped perl5.6 is compiled with -O2, apparently
for a reason).
-- System Information
Debian Release: 3.0
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux stalker.iGuide.co.il 2.4.18-bf2.4 #1 Son Apr 14 09:53:28 CEST
2002 i686
Locale: LANG=C, LC_CTYPE=C
Versions of packages gcc depends on:
ii cpp 2:2.95.4-14 The GNU C preprocessor.
ii cpp-2.95 1:2.95.4-11woody1 The GNU C preprocessor.
ii gcc-2.95 1:2.95.4-11woody1 The GNU C compiler.
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 178790-done) by bugs.debian.org; 22 Feb 2003 11:27:05 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 22 05:27:04 2003
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from mail.cs.tu-berlin.de [130.149.17.13] (root)
by master.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 1 (Debian))
id 18mXo8-00067I-00; Sat, 22 Feb 2003 05:27:04 -0600
Received: from bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [130.149.19.1])
by mail.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA15772;
Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:23:39 +0100 (MET)
Received: (from [EMAIL PROTECTED])
by bolero.cs.tu-berlin.de (8.11.6+Sun/8.9.3) id h1MBNd513595;
Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:23:39 +0100 (MET)
From: Matthias Klose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 2003 12:23:38 +0100
To: Vassilii Khachaturov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#178790: gcc sig11 - no longer reproduced, hardware problem?
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
X-Mailer: VM 7.03 under 21.4 (patch 6) "Common Lisp" XEmacs Lucid
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=4.0
tests=IN_REP_TO,QUOTED_EMAIL_TEXT,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_00_01
version=2.44
X-Spam-Level:
therefore closing the report
Vassilii Khachaturov writes:
> Today (2 reboots down the road), the very same cmdline in the
> very same place (although untarred again into a different directory)
> goes flawlessly. I am sorry to not have applied the sig11 FAQ
> techniques on the spot during the original submission.
>
> (I'm talking about http://www.tldp.org/FAQ/sig11/html/index.html )
>
> What mislead me was that originally I tried the compilation several
> times (with cleaning the whole tree, or just on the spot),
> and it ALWAYS stopped on the same file. But the FAQ explains this
> - I should have forced the gcc tools and the sources out of the cache
> before the recompilation, which I haven't done.
>
> The reason that I got back to it is that another bug (Bug #181153,
> which I now CC to as well) raised a strong suspicion of the maintainer
> that I might have a hardware problem, so I got back to revising
> all the bugs filed from this machine. Coincidence of 2 bugs with
> a strong possibility of a hardware problem is very suspicious.
>
> I'll subject the machine to severe checks and will report if any
> new stuff surfaces. Right now it has 6 days uptime w/o any problems
> since the last reboot (the reboot was from the OOPS in Bug #181153).
>
> /me LARTing myself heavily on the head
>
> Sorry for having wasted your time in the (most likely) case it's a
> hardware problem on my end.
>
> Vassilii
>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
