From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <981864.18690.qm@web83905.mail.sp1.yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 30 May 2010 18:33:48 -0700
From: "Brian L. Stuart" <blstuart@bellsouth.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
In-Reply-To: <455a9b599b32a95fdfa5ae79083ae99a@kw.quanstro.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Subject: Re: [9fans] crashing 9vx
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2dc2393e-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> you may be right, but it seems too easy to blame gcc.
> a better fit for the facts so far would seem to me that
> 9vx' locking is broken.  the optimization may just
> put
> more pressure on broken locking.

I would certainly agree that the variability of the
crashes feels like a mutual exclusion problem.  The
wide variety of effects of changing optimization
seems to by trying really hard to tell us something.
Of course, after two days of house-hunting I could
probably convince myself that the phase of the moon
is involved.

BLS