RE: Linux segmentation fault message

Oh, duh, of course, the olde 'too much CPU' paranoia by a web hoster. I suppose they don't expect web pages to do anything much more than IO


-----Original Message-----
From: plug-discuss-bounces@lists.phxlinux.org on behalf of Matt Graham
Sent: Sat 6/22/2013 2:03 PM
To: Main PLUG discussion list
Subject: RE: Linux segmentation fault message

...
> Also, on Solaris you probably have word alignment issues. Solaris
> (at least on sparc) has some pretty critical requirements on
> pointers pointing to the right alignment.

The code was ~- 50 lines and dealt with doing basic math on a bunch of ints
and printf()ing results. I don't think pointer alignment was the problem,
because I could do "testarray 10" and it'd run for 1 or 2 seconds before
segfaulting, displaying results for 10..14, then "testarray 14", and it'd run
for 1 or 2 seconds before segfaulting, displaying results for 14..18, and so
forth. This pattern kept up, though sometimes it'd go for 5 or 6 number sets
before segfaulting. This happened whether I used cc or gcc for the code in
question, making pointer alignment problems less likely.

I really think it was due to them having "1 user process can use at most 2-3
CPU seconds before being killed" rules in place. I had a much larger and more
complex program that ~30 other people used, which never segfaulted for
anything that was traceable back to pointer alignment. "Matt wrote bad code"
or "user did something that was really stupid which Matt didn't anticipate"
were the main cause of problems there....

---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss