Seth Kurtzberg wrote:
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 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