IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / General Q&A Forum / Re: Thanks.
Post #309,590
by folkert
Picture of folkert
6/12/09 12:26:35 AM
Reply
New Re: Thanks.
If anything is going to make a 'puter puke its a compiler.

Also, how new is it? Reason I ask... some compilers do not recognize or mis-recognize the processors and sometimes don't use the right optimizations for the compiler.

Case in point, Oracle is known for having issues with *NEW*NEW* processors that weren't in the pipeline when the Java installer and runtimes where put together.

I've also seen issues with other C++ and C compilers that don't quite understand the machines past "i686".

You might want to get an update on the compiler (binary patchset typically) and get the stuff updated. If you can re-compile that is. If not... it might just be the wrong optimizations (or workarounds for bad Intel Chips still active on good processors)...

Bleah, please remember, a great test is to compile a current Linux Kernel with GCC and load a "known config" from /boot/config-something... if it fails there, then you might have a bad piece of hardware

Too bad Borland is basically no more. Great company gone south ...
Post #309,591
by Another Scott
6/12/09 12:42:03 AM
Reply
New It's a binary made with Borland C++ Builder 5.
I'll have to check, but I don't think it's doing anything more than 386 optimizations. The other program that has trouble communicating with gnuplot I only have as a binary, and I think a MS compiler was used for it. It was built around 2004.

I have a copy of Builder 6, but it is different enough in compiling our code that it was decided not to do the upgrade. The errors and warnings thrown up compiling the code with 6 may be indicative of real issues, but since it works fine on almost all of our machines, well...

So far Memtest86 hasn't found any errors with the Standard memory tests on the T61. It throws up errors if I tell it to test All the RAM, rather than only that IDed by the BIOS. Dunno if that's meaningful though...

Oh well, I'll probably just live with it and slowly migrate the BC++ code to Python, and use the problematic binaries on machines that don't have trouble with it. It does give me pause to think about a new fast laptop, though...

Thanks.

Cheers,
Scott.
     Debian on VirtualBox. Easy-peasy. - (Another Scott) - (14) - June 11, 2009, 12:46:49 AM EDT
         Re: Debian on VirtualBox. Easy-peasy. - (folkert) - (13) - June 11, 2009, 09:21:30 AM EDT
             Thanks. - (Another Scott) - (12) - June 11, 2009, 11:07:25 PM EDT
                 Re: Thanks. - (folkert) - (1) - June 12, 2009, 12:26:35 AM EDT
                     It's a binary made with Borland C++ Builder 5. - (Another Scott) - June 12, 2009, 12:42:03 AM EDT
                 No RAM errors after 9 cycles. - (Another Scott) - (9) - June 12, 2009, 08:43:32 AM EDT
                     Re: No RAM errors after 9 cycles. - (folkert) - (8) - June 12, 2009, 11:10:09 AM EDT
                         Thanks again. - (Another Scott) - (7) - June 12, 2009, 06:52:15 PM EDT
                             Seems to be a video and/or motherboard issue. - (Another Scott) - (6) - June 13, 2009, 12:26:36 AM EDT
                                 Maybe not... - (Another Scott) - (5) - June 13, 2009, 12:53:35 AM EDT
                                     Hmmm... - (folkert) - (1) - June 13, 2009, 10:55:36 AM EDT
                                         "It always worked before, therefore it's not my fault." - (Another Scott) - June 13, 2009, 11:26:20 AM EDT
                                     Application->ProcessMessages() - (Another Scott) - (2) - June 27, 2009, 10:46:30 PM EDT
                                         Re: Application->ProcessMessages() - (folkert) - (1) - June 28, 2009, 09:46:11 AM EDT
                                             Sorta. - (Another Scott) - June 28, 2009, 09:56:16 AM EDT

SoylentSheep is Sheeple!
137 ms