🚀 go-pugleaf

Simon Slavin <slavins@hearsay.demon.co.uk.NOJUNK> wrote:
> alan.frame@acm.org (Alan W. Frame) wrote:
> 
> > ISTR, one of the "fixes" in 7.5.5 & 7.6 was that they're would
> > be fewer Type 11 errors on PPC boxes. The cynical have suggested
> > that's just because they are correctly identified as other specific
> > errors and not just reported as miscellaneous hardware exception 
> > type 11 errors...
> 
> No, that's actually what Apple described it as doing.

Ah! - I wasn't sure if that was the official story or not.
- I was NDA'd at the time.

> If the 680x0
> emulator crashed in the earlier systems, it was always reported as
> a Type 11 error.  The fix meant that the PPC would analyse how the
> emulator had crashed and report the appropriate error message.  I
> don't think there was any suggestion that there'd be fewer crashes.

The observation was "fewer Type 11 errors", and that much
is true...:-/

> ... except that, given the correct error message, the user would be
> more likely to be able to work out why the crash had happened and
> figure out how to prevent it from happening again.

But you must have heard the comparison between Mac error codes
(as far as "users" are concerned) and going to the doctor?

If you got to the doctor with an ailment, then he tells you
what it's called in Latin and sends you off none the wiser as to 
what caused it... :-)

I don't know how much use error codes are to punters[1] - they
can't look up IM and at least determine which manager/package
is to blame...

rgds, Alan
[1] Unless we can get it to say "Get rid of all that crap
you installed from some dodgy cover CD, and get on with
your work"