Grant Edwards wrote: > On 2015-08-21, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Earlier I saw segfaults in gcc, and another poster pointed it out. >> >> When gcc segfaults, it is always suspicious mostly because the compiler >> is an app where we know the devs take extraordinary measures to prevent it. >> >> The most common cause is faulty hardware (most often memory) as gcc >> tends to use all of it in ways no other app does. The usual procedure >> at this point is to run memtest for an extended period - say 48 >> hours, or even 72 for an older slow machine. > That is definitely good advice. I've run into this situation several > times. A machine had bad RAM that didn't seem to cause any problems > under "normal" operation. But, when trying to compile something large > like gcc, I would see non-repeatable segfaults (it wouldn't always > segfault at the exact same point). In those cases, I could often run > memtest for several passes and not see an error. But, _eventually_ > ramtest would catch it. Run memtest for a few days. Really.
Yeah, I know there's a single bit error out at the end of RAM that will appear on the third or fourth pass... I have already RMA'd half of the ram in this machine because it was giving a whole fist-full of errors across two sticks... I run the rusty old bus on the CPU ( SIX CORES!!!!) a bit harder than it was intended in order to keep up with the new junk. My previous machine had ECC. =( I was advised to just jack the voltage a little bit and live with it. I guess I'd better run more tests and see what the situation is.... It just doesn't seem reasonable to demand that every bit in a 32 gigabyte memory bank be absolutely perfect.... -- IQ is a measure of how stupid you feel. Powers are not rights.
