6.8.1 compilation error - final results

[Seth Kurtzberg]

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 at gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 06, 2007 4:01 AM
To: Seth Kurtzberg
Cc: glasgow-haskell-users at haskell.org
Subject: Re: 6.8.1 compilation error

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