Seth Kurtzberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 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. You know that isn't true. You
> can, on the same machines, compile the same code with a different
> compiler hundreds of times (which I did; I left it running on two
> machines for a month) without a single problem. That is a software problem.
OK, calm down. I, for one, suggested the possibility of a hardware
fault because your original message on the subject of gcc crashes did
not mention the possibility at all, and I thought perhaps it was a
factor you had not considered. Obviously you have indeed considered it
in quite some detail, and concluded that hardware is not a factor here.
But because we didn't know that, the suggestion was intended to help you
explore new avenues to tracking down the fault, not to annoy you.
Regards,
Malcolm
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
