Gentoo Archives: gentoo-amd64

From: Frank Peters <frank.peters@×××××××.net>
To: gentoo-amd64@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Possible Math Problem - Request For Verification [Solved]
Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2011 03:46:45
Message-Id: 20110625234418.a66f8d7b.frank.peters@comcast.net
In Reply to: [gentoo-amd64] Possible Math Problem - Request For Verification by Frank Peters
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

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-amd64] Possible Math Problem - Request For Verification [Solved] Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com>