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