Re: [Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11]

Re: [Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11]

[Jesse Pollard]

> 
> 
> "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 is only
> a application. It  only parse and gernerates object files. How can RAM or
> motherboard makes different

It's most likely flackey memory.

Remember- a single bit that dropps can cause the signal 11. It doesn't have
to happen consistently either. I had the same problem until I slowed down
memory access (that seemd to cover the borderline chip).

The compiler uses different amounts of memory depending on the source file,
number of symbols defined (via include headers). When the multiple passes
occur simultaneously, there is higher memory pressure, and more of the
free space used. One of the pages may flake out. Compiling the kernel
puts more pressure on memory than compiling most applications.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

Re: [Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11]

[szonyi calin]

--- Jesse Pollard <pollard@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil>
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 that I compiled with gcc without any
> problem. Again compilation is only
> > a application. It  only parse and gernerates
> object files. How can RAM or
> > motherboard makes different
> 
> It's most likely flackey memory.
> 
> Remember- a single bit that dropps can cause the
> signal 11. It doesn't have
> to happen consistently either. I had the same
> problem until I slowed down
> memory access (that seemd to cover the borderline
> chip).
> 
> The compiler uses different amounts of memory
> depending on the source file,
> number of symbols defined (via include headers).
> When the multiple passes
> occur simultaneously, there is higher memory
> pressure, and more of the
> free space used. One of the pages may flake out.
> Compiling the kernel
> puts more pressure on memory than compiling most
> applications.
> 
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Jesse I Pollard, II
> Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil
> 
> Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
> "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at 
> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

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.
It was also a joke on that subject:
Winerr xxx: Hardware problem (it's not our fault, it's
not, it's not, it's not, it's not...)


Seems to me like Micro$oft way of handling problems.

We must agree that gcc is full of bugs (xanim does not

run corectly if it is compiled with gcc 2.95.3 
and other programs which use floating point
calculations do the same (spice 3f5))

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 was upgrading
the kernel every time there was a new kernel and
from 2.2.12(or 14) no more signal 11 (very rare)
Is this still a hardware problem ?
Was a bug in kernel ?

I think the last answer is more obvious.(or the gcc
had a bug and the kernel -- a workaround).

Sorry for bothering you but in every piece of linux
documentation signal 11 seems to be __identic__ with
hardware problem.
Bye

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/

Re: [Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11]

[Albert D. Cahalan]

> 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 was upgrading
> the kernel every time there was a new kernel and
> from 2.2.12(or 14) no more signal 11 (very rare)
> Is this still a hardware problem ?

It could be. One possible way:

1. your system is clogged with dust
2. gcc runs the CPU hard, generating lots of heat
3. the heat causes crashes
4. a new Linux version that sets a Cyrix-specific power-saving mode
5. your heat problems go away, and so do the crashes

Another possible way:

1. you have buggy motherboard or disk hardware
2. when you swap, gcc gets corrupted by the hardware
3. you get a new Linux kernel that has a bug work-around
4. your problems go away

Yet another way:

1. your room is hot, your computer is near a huge motor...
2. you upgrade to Linux 2.2.12 and move your computer
3. soon you realize that the crashes are gone
4. you credit the kernel, but location was the problem

Re: [Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11]

[H. Peter Anvin]

Followup to:  <20010629142055.49246.qmail@web13907.mail.yahoo.com>
By author:    szonyi calin <caszonyi@yahoo.com>
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 of the best memory testers known to man -- much
better than most other programs.  A big reason for that is that it
accesses lots of memory in funny patterns, *AND* accesses to it are
likely to be fatal.

It is just the way it is.  gcc doing the signal 11 is HIGHLY
correlated with the hardware you are running on, which means it's
*usually* hardware-related.

> [... Lots of M$ flames ignored ...]

> 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 was upgrading
> the kernel every time there was a new kernel and from 2.2.12(or 14)
> no more signal 11 (very rare) Is this still a hardware problem ?
> Was a bug in kernel ?
> 
> I think the last answer is more obvious.(or the gcc
> had a bug and the kernel -- a workaround).

Most likely is that your *hardware* had a bug and the new kernel a
workaround (this is quite common), but without more detail it is very
hard to know.

	-hpa
-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!
"Unix gives you enough rope to shoot yourself in the foot."
http://www.zytor.com/~hpa/puzzle.txt

Re: [Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11]

[Riley Williams]

Hi HPA.

 >> 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 was
 >> upgrading the kernel every time there was a new kernel and from
 >> 2.2.12(or 14) no more signal 11 (very rare) Is this still a
 >> hardware problem ? Was a bug in kernel ?

 >> I think the last answer is more obvious.(or the gcc had a bug
 >> and the kernel -- a workaround).

 > Most likely is that your *hardware* had a bug and the new kernel
 > a workaround (this is quite common), but without more detail it
 > is very hard to know.

Wasn't 2.2.12 the kernel that included the `lock halt` bug patch?

Best wishes from Riley.

Re: [Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11]

[H. Peter Anvin]

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

Re: [Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11]

[Riley Williams]

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 registers` patch for the Intel processors,
and I noted that the processor in question was a Cyrix one, hence the
comment.

Best wishes from Riley.

Re: [Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11]

[H. Peter Anvin]

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 registers` patch for the Intel processors,
> and I noted that the processor in question was a Cyrix one, hence the
> comment.
> 


Oh.  Sorry, I don't know about "lock halt" and its effects.  However, if 
it refers to the instruction sequence LOCK HLT I find it hard to believe 
it would have the symptoms described.

	-hpa

Re: [Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11]

[Riley Williams]

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 registers` patch for the
 >> Intel processors, and I noted that the processor in question was
 >> a Cyrix one, hence the comment.

 > Oh.  Sorry, I don't know about "lock halt" and its effects.
 > However, if it refers to the instruction sequence LOCK HLT I
 > find it hard to believe it would have the symptoms described.

I don't have the paperwork to hand, and my memory isn't brilliant, but
the bug was something along the lines of Cyrix processors trashing the
SP if the instruction preceding (or following, I'm not sure which) a
HLT opcode was locked, and the patch was to remove some instances in
the kernel source where that occurred.

It's quite possibly unrelated, but...

Best wishes from Riley.

Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11

[David Relson]

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.
>It was also a joke on that subject:
>Winerr xxx: Hardware problem (it's not our fault, it's
>not, it's not, it's not, it's not...)
>
>
>Seems to me like Micro$oft way of handling problems.
>
>We must agree that gcc is full of bugs (xanim does not
>run corectly if it is compiled with gcc 2.95.3
>and other programs which use floating point
>calculations do the same (spice 3f5))

All versions of gcc have bugs.  They generally show up as incorrect 
complaints about the source code, as generated code that is less than 
optimal or that is flat out wrong.  With this kind of bug, if you compile 
the program twice you'll get the same (buggy) result.

Sig 11 is a bit different.  With a compiler bug causing the sig 11, the 
problem will happen EVERY time you compile the given file - because the 
compiler is busted.  This kind of problem is detected early in the 
compiler's life cycle and gets fixed.

Then there are the intermittent sig 11 errors.  If the software was broken, 
the sig 11 would happen whenever you do the same thing.  Being able to 
compile a bunch of files, get a sig 11, compile a bunch more, sig 11, a 
bunch more ... is a sign that the problem isn't the compiler.  Peoples' 
experience over the years has shown that symptoms of this type are cause by 
(intermittent) hardware problems.

Why does this affect gcc more than other programs?  Because gcc uses 
gazillions of pointers and bad memory causes bad pointers causes sig 11.

Hope this helps.

David

P.S.  Years ago, installing OS/2 on an apparently 100% working system would 
show similar problems.  OS/2 was the first widely used 32 bit operating 
system on Intel hardware.  It exercised the hardware differently from DOS, 
Windows, etc and flaky memory would make itself known.  The usual reaction 
was "But my system worked fine before OS/2...."  The response was 
"different software exercises the hardware differently and may reveal 
unsuspected problems".
--------------------------------------------------------
David Relson                   Osage Software Systems, Inc.
relson@osagesoftware.com       Ann Arbor, MI 48103
www.osagesoftware.com          tel:  734.821.8800

Re: [Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11]

[Tha Phlash]

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 option called "Memory Hole at 15Mb Addr." I enabled it and i got no more sig11, however when I boot up, Linux only recognizes like 13Mb of my 64Mb of RAM. 

Anyway, there are my 2 cents.

Luis <phlash>
-- 

_______________________________________________
FREE Personalized E-mail at Mail.com
http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

FREE PC-to-Phone calls with Net2Phone
http://www.net2phone.com/cgi-bin/link.cgi?121

Re: [Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11]

[Jesse Pollard]

---------  Received message begins Here  ---------

> 
> 
> --- Jesse Pollard <pollard@tomcat.admin.navo.hpc.mil>
> 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 that I compiled with gcc without any
> > problem. Again compilation is only
> > > a application. It  only parse and gernerates
> > object files. How can RAM or
> > > motherboard makes different
> > 
> > It's most likely flackey memory.
> > 
> > Remember- a single bit that dropps can cause the
> > signal 11. It doesn't have
> > to happen consistently either. I had the same
> > problem until I slowed down
> > memory access (that seemd to cover the borderline
> > chip).
> > 
> > The compiler uses different amounts of memory
> > depending on the source file,
> > number of symbols defined (via include headers).
> > When the multiple passes
> > occur simultaneously, there is higher memory
> > pressure, and more of the
> > free space used. One of the pages may flake out.
> > Compiling the kernel
> > puts more pressure on memory than compiling most
> > applications.
> > 
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Jesse I Pollard, II
> > Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil
> > 
> > Any opinions expressed are solely my own.
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line
> > "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at 
> > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
> 
> 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 ?

Load the system down with lots of processes/large
image windows. Unless the bit in question is in
a pointer, or data used in pointer arithmetic or function call
it won't
segfault. Applications (if an instruction page gets hit)
may get an illegal instruction.

> I remember that once Bill Gates was asked about
> crashes in windows and he said: It's a hardware
> problem.
> It was also a joke on that subject:
> Winerr xxx: Hardware problem (it's not our fault, it's
> not, it's not, it's not, it's not...)

Yup - because it crashed VERY frequently when it was obviously a
software bug.

> Seems to me like Micro$oft way of handling problems.
> 
> We must agree that gcc is full of bugs (xanim does not
> 
> run corectly if it is compiled with gcc 2.95.3 
> and other programs which use floating point
> calculations do the same (spice 3f5))

Generating wrong code is different than a segfault.

Currently I'm using egcs-2.91.66 on a 486, without problems.
(I don't do floating point on a 486... too slow).

> 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 was upgrading
> the kernel every time there was a new kernel and
> from 2.2.12(or 14) no more signal 11 (very rare)
> Is this still a hardware problem ?
> Was a bug in kernel ?

Not likely - It could just depend on whether all of available
was used. If the physical page with the problem doesn't get used
very often, it won't show up. If the bit in question is not part
of a pointer, or used in pointer arithmetic, again it won't show
up (actually, any operation on addresses). Wrong, or slightly wrong
results MAY show up.

> I think the last answer is more obvious.(or the gcc
> had a bug and the kernel -- a workaround).
> 
> Sorry for bothering you but in every piece of linux
> documentation signal 11 seems to be __identic__ with
> hardware problem.
> Bye

Only when it appears in random location.

GCC is a fairly well debugged program and doesn't segfault
unless you run out of memory, or flakey memory.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesse I Pollard, II
Email: pollard@navo.hpc.mil

Any opinions expressed are solely my own.

Re: [Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11]

[Blesson Paul]

"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 is only
a application. It  only parse and gernerates object files. How can RAM or
motherboard makes different
                          

Re: [Re: gcc: internal compiler error: program cc1 got fatal signal 11]

[Erik Mouw]

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
> stuffs that I compiled with gcc without any problem. Again compilation is only
> a application. It  only parse and gernerates object files. How can RAM or
> motherboard makes different

Please read the complete Sig11 FAQ (http://www.bitwizard.nl/sig11/ ),
your question is discussed in it as well.


Erik

-- 
J.A.K. (Erik) Mouw, Information and Communication Theory Group, Department
of Electrical Engineering, Faculty of Information Technology and Systems,
Delft University of Technology, PO BOX 5031,  2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands
Phone: +31-15-2783635  Fax: +31-15-2781843  Email: J.A.K.Mouw@its.tudelft.nl
WWW: http://www-ict.its.tudelft.nl/~erik/