There are three issues here:

(1) From the SIGSEGV when you try to run AFNI, it seems that your system isn't completely compatible with the Solaris 2.8 system on which I compile AFNI. However, it would be interesting to see the output of afni -TRACE. If you run this way, afni will trace most of its actions, printing to the screen. The output will be huge; can you do this, and then post the last 20 (or so) lines of output? This will help pinpoint the crash. Also, I just recompiled the solaris28_gcc binaries last night, so you might try those. Maybe you'll be lucky?

(2) It is odd that the compilation fails at 3dNLfim. It could be that you have an older (or newer) version of gcc or ld than I do -- my Solaris 2.8 machine is using gcc 2.95.3 and ld 2.13 (you can check via the commands gcc --version and /usr/local/bin/ld --version). However, at this point, the main afni program will have been compiled. You can continue the compilation by using the command make -i totality -- the -i option tells make to ignore errors and proceed, instead of stopping. This should give you a nearly complete set of AFNI programs, I hope.

No, wait! I see from your posting that the compiler is using program /usr/ccs/bin/ld -- this is the Sun loader, and you don't want to use that! You need to use the GCC loader, which should be in /usr/local/bin/ld. To ensure this, you should setup your path so that /usr/local/bin is before /usr/ccs/bin -- for example, my path on the Solaris 2.8 machine is set by a command like so:

set path = ( /usr/bin /bin /usr/sbin /sbin /usr/local/bin /usr/ccs/bin /usr/openwin/bin /etc /usr/etc /usr/dt/bin )

For more details on the path, see [afni.nimh.nih.gov] . After you change this, you should start over with a command like make cleaner, followed by make totality.

(3) You don't seem to have the license for the Sun C compiler. This costs extra money (a lot, I think), and that's the main reason why people use gcc (which is free free free). My experience with Sun C is that it produces code that runs 10-30% faster than gcc -- I don't think that is worth the price of the compiler.