Gcc 3.2.2 vs gcc 3.2.3

2003-09-22 Thread Justin Smith
My system: FreeBSD jsmith.org 5.1-RELEASE-p3 FreeBSD 5.1-RELEASE-p3 #0: Sat Sep 20 14:37:32 EDT 2003 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/MYKERNEL i386 I'm running a P4 2.4 Ghz processor with 512meg of ram. I've had the problem of getting signal 11 and signal 4 when I make buildworld

Re: Gcc 3.2.2 vs gcc 3.2.3

2003-09-22 Thread Alexander Kabaev
On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 09:43:39 -0400 Justin Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: make world builds and installs gcc 3.2.3? It can't be as simple as replacing the compiler source in /usr/src with that of gcc 3.2.3 (or is it?). For 3.2.2-to-3.2.3 upgrade the newer sources in

Re: Gcc 3.2.2 vs gcc 3.2.3

2003-09-22 Thread Holger Kipp
both the mainboard and the memory chip vendors. imho memtest seems to be suitable for this-is-real-broken-memory(tm) only. It might be that due to differnent optimisations (gcc 3.2.2 vs gcc 3.2.3) you might escape the bitpatterns that would otherwise trigger the sig 11. This is only one

Re: Gcc 3.2.2 vs gcc 3.2.3

2003-09-22 Thread Jens Rehsack
Holger Kipp wrote: ... imho memtest seems to be suitable for this-is-real-broken-memory(tm) only. Yes, memtest86 could only detect bad memory. No reported failure doesn't says anything except memtest86 didn't found any error. It might be that due to differnent optimisations (gcc 3.2.2 vs gcc

Re: Gcc 3.2.2 vs gcc 3.2.3

2003-09-22 Thread Wilko Bulte
On Mon, Sep 22, 2003 at 02:25:27PM +, Holger Kipp wrote: Justin Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm running a P4 2.4 Ghz processor with 512meg of ram. I've had the problem of getting signal 11 and signal 4 when I make buildworld and buildkernel. I tested my system with memtest86