On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 18:33, James Wiggs wrote: > On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 11:22, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > > On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 08:59, Nikita V. Youshchenko wrote: > > > > > The bugs are *not* repeatable. I can type make, have the make > > > > > choke on something like the above, type make again, and it will get > > > > > through the compile. > > > > > > > > Are you sure you don't have hardware problems? > > > > Most likely such gcc failures are caused by bad ram and/or processor > > > > overheat. > > > > > > I'd actually be relieved if it was a hardware problem, then I could > > > just by some replacement memory or whatever and be done with it. Any > > > suggestions as to tests I could run to track that down? I can run a > > > copy of Memtest86 on the box tonight. I just don't see any other signs > > > of instability on the box, and it gets quite heavily used, compiling a > > > lot of code every day as a development server. Is it just that g++ is > > > working the memory a lot harder than gcc/php/mysql/xfree86/everything > > > else? > > > > I'm not absolutely sure that it's hearware-related. > > However, non-reproducable ICE on normal hardware is something really > > strange. G++ itself is completely deterministic. > > G++ on large files with hard usage of templates is something that exercises > > CPU and memory seriously. So it *may* show problems that other load > > doesn't show. On the other case, if the box is in heavy daily use, and no > > hardware failures happen, maybe hardware is OK. > > > > Strange. Very strange. > > > > Can't you test compilation of library in question on another box? > > Well, I just successfully compiled the code on a box I have > access to which is installed with RH 8.0. It's a P4 1.5 GHz with > 512 MB RAM. The version of g++ on it is 3.2-7 (RedHat 8.0). OK, > so this begins to look like it *could* be the hardware, but I hate > comparing apples to oranges on something like this. I really wish > I could do the test on a machine that's running Sarge. Has anyone > else compiled this software (QuickFIX 1.9.2) successfully on a > Sarge box? > > Thanks for the feedback on this. I will post more as I go. > > regards, > Jim
Well, there have been multiple follow-ups at this point from people who have successfully compiled this code on their Sarge boxes. It's really looking like there's a problem with my box. I booted the thing off a Memtest86v3.1a boot floppy and ran it for 6 hours solid, going through two full passes with 0 errors of any kind. I don't think there's anything wrong with the RAM in this machine. Can anyone suggest what else might be wrong on the box that could lead to problems like this? Could a CPU be flaky in some way to cause this? Hard drives? I'm really stumped, here... thanks, Jim -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
