<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Simon Marlow wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid3429668D0E777A499EE74A7952C382D1032E66DD@EUR-MSG-01.europe.corp.microsoft.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 18 February 2005 10:17, Seth Kurtzberg wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Simon, you'll never give up. The crashes are absolutely repeatable.
The fact that I haven't identified a deterministic way to reproduce
them does not in any way imply that a deterministic way to reproduce
them does not exist. And, as I've said, you are essentially claiming
that a total of over 100 machines all have the same hardware problem,
that never ever occurs unless gcc is running.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I'm not *claiming* anything about your case - please read what I said.
I simply commented that random crashes in gcc are often caused by
hardware failure. Indeed it sounds like hardware isn't the problem in
your case, so I suggest you try to narrow down the problem and submit a
report to the gcc folks.
Cheers,
Simon
</pre>
</blockquote>
The gcc folks know about the problem, they just don't know how to fix
it. I've sent them about 30 core files and many valgrind runs showing
heap corruption.<br>
<br>
I have actually never seen a random crash in gcc, with a coherent core
dump file, caused by hardware. This is much much too regular to even
suspect hardware.<br>
<br>
You also have the fact that these machines can run ghc or ghci all day
long. ghc is a heavier user of resources, and a much more complex
program, but it never crashes these systems (except occasionally during
these initial release or pre-release periods, which is of course to be
expected). _If_ a random crash were caused by hardware, other programs
would _always_ occasionally crash. There are no exceptions to this
rule, unless you never run any program other than gcc that uses
significant resources (and even then I'd be dubious).<br>
<br>
It's been happening for so long, and the gcc people have no concept of
what's happening, so people don't even bother to report it anymore.
Gcc 3.1 and 3.2 were simply rejected by almost all users because of the
frequency of crashes. With 3.3, the crashes did not disappear, but
became less common. The initial 3.4 release was unusable. All of
these things are well known to anyone working on a C++ project.<br>
<br>
I would think that, in addition to showing the ghc is a far superior
piece of software, the fact that ghc or ghci, once built, never crashes
would eliminate any doubt about whether the problem is caused by
hardware or software.<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid3429668D0E777A499EE74A7952C382D1032E66DD@EUR-MSG-01.europe.corp.microsoft.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org">Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users">http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users</a>
!DSPAM:4215dcff207641880317564!
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>