On Fri, Sep 22, 2000 at 02:43:21AM +0100, Nick Boyce wrote:
> The machine seems to be functioning happily despite this, and I assume
> that "ECC" means this was, um, a single-bit fail in error correcting
> memory and was therefore recovered - guessing madly here.

you're correct.  (one of the reasons I like old DEC hardware: it's well
engineered.)

> I also guess this sort of hardware-related behaviour is peculiar to
> the pmax kernel so I shouldn't ask about this anywhere but on this
> list ... is that about right ?

http://mail-index.netbsd.org/port-pmax/1999/08/15/0002.html

> Can anyone tell me whether I'd be best advised to have our hardware
> support people swap the RAM out in this machine ?
>
> If so, do the above reported addresses help me figure out which memory
> module is bad ?  (The machine has 32 Mb)

yes.  see the above URL.

Simon, I know you were working on a patch to print out the memory module
number when this happened; did it ever make its way back to the mainline
sources?

-- 
  Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." | agrier@poofygoof.com
    "[N]ow would be a great time for record companies to start releasing
       everything on vinyl."  --  David Wolf, regarding mp3 pirating