1 |
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Frank Peters <frank.peters@×××××××.net> wrote: |
2 |
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:41:11 -0400 |
3 |
> Frank Peters <frank.peters@×××××××.net> wrote: |
4 |
> |
5 |
>> |
6 |
>> /tmp/fp-test-results/clib_DP.output: ucbtest UCBFAIL in cabsd at line 701 for double |
7 |
>> |
8 |
> |
9 |
> The culprit seems to be GCC optimization. If I run the test with either "-O0" |
10 |
> or "-O1" flags I can eliminate the cabsd failure. Using "-O2" or "-O3" will |
11 |
> result in the cabsd error. |
12 |
> |
13 |
> However, I've used "-O2" previously and had no problems with this test. Possibly, |
14 |
> some of these new LTO and GRAPHITE capabilities of GCC are to blame, even though |
15 |
> I do not compile the ucbtest with either LTO or GRAPHITE enabled. But GCC has itself |
16 |
> been compiled using LTO and GRAPHITE. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> Anyway, thanks for all who actually ran the test on their machines. I was |
19 |
> thinking of filing bug reports with GLIBC and GCC and that would have turned |
20 |
> out to be foolish. I did check the Changelogs for GLIBC and there doesn't seem |
21 |
> to have been any modification of the cabs() code over the last several versions. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> Frank Peters |
24 |
|
25 |
I'm using -O2 here on all my machines. Certainly it isn't that option |
26 |
that causes a problem for everyone. Sounds like something specific to |
27 |
your processor revision. |
28 |
|
29 |
Take care, |
30 |
Mark |