On Thursday 13 January 2005 10:04 am, "Dave Nebinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Most segfaults are hardware related and rarely exactly reproducible. > > Hah, some programmer fed you a line of crap and you chowed down on it > ;-)
I'm a programmer too. In *my* code a seg. fault means I screwed up. Full stop. I've never encountered a seg. fault in my code that was hardware related. However, the gcc team has said for years that segfaults in gcc are almost always due to faulty hardware and I believe them. I've thrown some truely horrible crap at gcc, and even caused it to shutdown with an internal error (more than once). I've never seen it seg. fault without the hardware being screwy. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy -- [email protected] mailing list
