Ive also had a problem with signal 11, heres a great page explaining the aspects of
signal 11 error from gcc (http://www.bitwizard.nl/sig11/).
Signal 11 is usually a hardware problem, as the article points out. I found a sloppy
soulution playing with my BIOS settings, turns out there was an
Ive also had a problem with signal 11, heres a great page explaining the aspects of
signal 11 error from gcc (http://www.bitwizard.nl/sig11/).
Signal 11 is usually a hardware problem, as the article points out. I found a sloppy
soulution playing with my BIOS settings, turns out there was an
Riley Williams wrote:
> Hi Peter.
>
> >> Wasn't 2.2.12 the kernel that included the `lock halt` bug patch?
>
> > Perhaps, but is has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of
> > this discussion.
>
> The `lock halt` bug patch was specific to the Cyrix processors (not to
> be confused with
Riley Williams wrote:
>
> Wasn't 2.2.12 the kernel that included the `lock halt` bug patch?
>
Perhaps, but is has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of this
discussion.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Followup to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
By author:szonyi calin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Almost always ?
> It seems like gcc is THE ONLY program which gets
> signal 11
> Why the X server doesn't get signal 11 ?
> Why others programs don't get signal 11 ?
>
gcc
Followup to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By author:szonyi calin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
Almost always ?
It seems like gcc is THE ONLY program which gets
signal 11
Why the X server doesn't get signal 11 ?
Why others programs don't get signal 11 ?
gcc happens to be one
Riley Williams wrote:
Wasn't 2.2.12 the kernel that included the `lock halt` bug patch?
Perhaps, but is has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of this
discussion.
-hpa
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to
Riley Williams wrote:
Hi Peter.
Wasn't 2.2.12 the kernel that included the `lock halt` bug patch?
Perhaps, but is has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of
this discussion.
The `lock halt` bug patch was specific to the Cyrix processors (not to
be confused with the `lock
> Almost always ?
> It seems like gcc is THE ONLY program which gets
> signal 11
> Why the X server doesn't get signal 11 ?
> Why others programs don't get signal 11 ?
...
> Some time ago I installed Linux (Redhat 6.0) on my
> pc (Cx486 8M RAM) and gcc had a lot of signal 11 (a
> couple every
- Received message begins Here -
>
>
> --- Jesse Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > "This is almost always the result of flakiness in
> > your hardware - either
> > > RAM (most likely), or motherboard (less likely).
> > "
> > >
At 10:20 AM 6/29/01, you wrote:
>Almost always ?
>It seems like gcc is THE ONLY program which gets
>signal 11
>Why the X server doesn't get signal 11 ?
>Why others programs don't get signal 11 ?
>
>I remember that once Bill Gates was asked about
>crashes in windows and he said: It's a hardware
--- Jesse Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >
> > "This is almost always the result of flakiness in
> your hardware - either
> > RAM (most likely), or motherboard (less likely).
> "
> >
> > I cannot understand
> this. There are
>
>
> "This is almost always the result of flakiness in your hardware - either
> RAM (most likely), or motherboard (less likely). "
>
> I cannot understand this. There are many other
> stuffs that I compiled with gcc without any problem.
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 11:23:37PM -0600, Blesson Paul wrote:
>
> "This is almost always the result of flakiness in your hardware - either
> RAM (most likely), or motherboard (less likely). "
>
> I cannot understand this. There are many
On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 11:23:37PM -0600, Blesson Paul wrote:
This is almost always the result of flakiness in your hardware - either
RAM (most likely), or motherboard (less likely).
I cannot understand this. There are many other
This is almost always the result of flakiness in your hardware - either
RAM (most likely), or motherboard (less likely).
I cannot understand this. There are many other
stuffs that I compiled with gcc without any problem. Again
--- Jesse Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is almost always the result of flakiness in
your hardware - either
RAM (most likely), or motherboard (less likely).
I cannot understand
this. There are many other
stuffs
At 10:20 AM 6/29/01, you wrote:
Almost always ?
It seems like gcc is THE ONLY program which gets
signal 11
Why the X server doesn't get signal 11 ?
Why others programs don't get signal 11 ?
I remember that once Bill Gates was asked about
crashes in windows and he said: It's a hardware
problem.
- Received message begins Here -
--- Jesse Pollard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
This is almost always the result of flakiness in
your hardware - either
RAM (most likely), or motherboard (less likely).
Almost always ?
It seems like gcc is THE ONLY program which gets
signal 11
Why the X server doesn't get signal 11 ?
Why others programs don't get signal 11 ?
...
Some time ago I installed Linux (Redhat 6.0) on my
pc (Cx486 8M RAM) and gcc had a lot of signal 11 (a
couple every hour) I
"This is almost always the result of flakiness in your hardware - either
RAM (most likely), or motherboard (less likely). "
I cannot understand this. There are many other
stuffs that I compiled with gcc without any problem. Again
This is almost always the result of flakiness in your hardware - either
RAM (most likely), or motherboard (less likely).
I cannot understand this. There are many other
stuffs that I compiled with gcc without any problem. Again compilation
22 matches
Mail list logo
