why would I get a segmentation fault on one system but not the other?

[David Benfell]

On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 09:19:56AM +0100, Polytropon wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:03:50 -0600, cpet wrote:
> > As well as don't use stable on a production box as STABLE doesn't mean 
> > what it means.
> 
> STABLE means that the API/ABI is stable. Unlike HEAD (CURRENT),
> STABLE still is actually _stable_ in most cases, so it's a valid
> solution for production systems (given that you're prepared well,
> and you know what you're doing). I'm running STABLE on few
> production machines myself (where this is needed), but I usually
> prefer (and often recommend) using RELEASE and add the security
> patches when they are available.
> 
Thinking about this more, I'm inclined to think my problem is not with
the base system. I haven't seen *any* crashes with stuff that can be
clearly identified as being in the base system, let alone the kernel.

My memory test has just completed a 4th pass with zero errors. It's
now been running for 7.5 hours.

I think my problem is somewhere in the ports.

-- 
David Benfell <benfell at parts-unknown.org>
See https://parts-unknown.org/node/2 if you don't understand the
attachment.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/attachments/20150222/bc6a6171/attachment.sig>