This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
| Other format: | [Raw text] | |
On Fri, Jan 16, 2004 at 07:36:42AM -0800, Dan Kegel wrote: > Robert Schiele wrote: > >Well, this technical solution would not really solve the problem. It would > >still be possible that some vendor specific patch in my binutils, a > >hardware > >bug, or cosmic radiation might cause a failure. > > Then stop using a vendor-supplied binutils -- would a vanilla one really > be hard to install? I rather doubt hardware bugs or cosmic radiation > will be a problem. Well, I think you didn't get my point. Sure I could install any binutils package. What I wanted to say is that it is absolutely impossible to catch every case where some automated failure reporting mechanism misreports a failure because you always miss one case. And if this is annoying people I prefer to stop automated reporting to those people and thus to the list. In fact in the current case it was something strange which was non-reproducable with the same sources in the same environment. Thus it must have been a hardware bug, a race condition or something else (which is what I call "cosmic radiation" ;-). So there is no indication that it was related to a vendor specific patch and thus it most likely wouldn't have helped to install a vanilla version and people would still have complained. Robert -- Robert Schiele Tel.: +49-621-181-2517 Dipl.-Wirtsch.informatiker mailto:rschiele@uni-mannheim.de
Attachment:
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
| Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
|---|---|---|
| Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |