Don! Thanks for the Interaction.
midio at att.net
Mon Mar 11 15:55:54 PST 2002
"Bill Maltby LFS Related" <lfsbill at wlmlx1.wlmcs.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.10.10203111642530.1435-100000 at wlmlx1.wlmcs.com...
> Your commnets about swap caused me to say hmmm...
> You saw that I started a run on my itsy-bitsy. Well,
> glibc finished in about 1/4 - 1/3 the time it had been
> taking. How much is due to the speed of the drive and
> how much do to the increased swap size, I can't say.
> I bet the majority is just swap size. Anyway, I wanted
> to say thanks for the comments.
> All of a sudden, that ol' 166MHz doesn't seem so slow.
> Maybe I don't need that dual Athlon I've been scheming for.
> Nah - it's definitely mandatory.
You are more than welcome.
I have lots of experience with small, underpowered machines :-). The
fastest one I have is a P 120, but it is from Compaq so it is not very
upgradable (too much proprietary crap) - memory is very limited, so I
haven't bothered put LFS on it yet. Been doing LFS on a 486/66, now with
48MB memory (found a 32MB simm behind a 4MB simm).
Anyway, reflecting on it all, I wouldn't be surprise if gcc has a bug
handling the out-of-memory interupt (signal) thrown when doing a new. It
must be one of those situations that work almost all of the time but
every-once-in-a-while it returns a non-null, but invalid, pointer when
the moon lines up with Aldebaran.
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-support' in the subject header of the message
More information about the lfs-support