1 |
On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:41:11 -0400 |
2 |
Frank Peters <frank.peters@×××××××.net> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> |
5 |
> /tmp/fp-test-results/clib_DP.output: ucbtest UCBFAIL in cabsd at line 701 for double |
6 |
> |
7 |
|
8 |
The culprit seems to be GCC optimization. If I run the test with either "-O0" |
9 |
or "-O1" flags I can eliminate the cabsd failure. Using "-O2" or "-O3" will |
10 |
result in the cabsd error. |
11 |
|
12 |
However, I've used "-O2" previously and had no problems with this test. Possibly, |
13 |
some of these new LTO and GRAPHITE capabilities of GCC are to blame, even though |
14 |
I do not compile the ucbtest with either LTO or GRAPHITE enabled. But GCC has itself |
15 |
been compiled using LTO and GRAPHITE. |
16 |
|
17 |
Anyway, thanks for all who actually ran the test on their machines. I was |
18 |
thinking of filing bug reports with GLIBC and GCC and that would have turned |
19 |
out to be foolish. I did check the Changelogs for GLIBC and there doesn't seem |
20 |
to have been any modification of the cabs() code over the last several versions. |
21 |
|
22 |
Frank Peters |