
At this point I don't believe the problem that I reported is related to ghc, although I'm repeating things to bolster that conclusion.
(As an aside, except for memory testing, the manufacturing test suite for the product I'm about to discuss is written in Haskell with just a handful of situations that required using the FFI to call C++ or C functions.)
I've done memory hardware testing in manufacturing situations, and until quite recently I would have agreed with your characterization of memory testing programs. (I understand your comment was not intended to be 100% serious, but I think it's worth answering regardless.)
We, of course, keep statistics about the accuracy of the manufacturing
For those (if any) following my latest build saga :) After install gcc 4.2.1, and dispensing with extralibs, I was able to build 6.8.1 from source. (This is on an x86 linux box running the 2.6.21 with the preemptive scheduler.) (I mention the scheduler because I have a lurking suspicion that it is related to the fact that I see more seg faults and internal compiler errors than people I've communicated with running the same kernel and compiler but the default scheduler.) I did experience one seg fault during link, near the end of the build process. I restarted the build and it completed. I'm going to run the build on one of my other Linux boxes today with the same tools (gcc 4.2.1 and ghc 6.6.1) and see if there are any linker seg faults. I've tried to eliminate my memory hardware as a factor; of course, the only way to truly eliminate hardware is to get the same behavior on more than one box. -----Original Message----- From: Simon Marlow [mailto:simonmarhaskell@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:01 AM To: Seth Kurtzberg Cc: glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org Subject: Re: 6.8.1 compilation error Seth Kurtzberg wrote: line
testing. With the most recent version of memtest86, we've found the rate of false negatives to have declined dramatically, and is now in the area of 1-2%. The increased accuracy, of course, has a cost; on the current platform a single testing round takes almost four hours, and I consider three rounds to be the minimum required for thorough testing.
Interesting... I might actually use memtest86 now, thanks! Simon