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
_______________________________________________
Glasgow-haskell-users mailing list
Glasgow-haskell-users@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/glasgow-haskell-users
