List Archive: gentoo-amd64
Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date.
provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.c.f. bug 424647
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Frank Peters <frank.peters@...> wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:41:11 -0400
> Frank Peters <frank.peters@...> wrote:
>> /tmp/fp-test-results/clib_DP.output: ucbtest UCBFAIL in cabsd at line 701 for double
> The culprit seems to be GCC optimization. If I run the test with either "-O0"
> or "-O1" flags I can eliminate the cabsd failure. Using "-O2" or "-O3" will
> result in the cabsd error.
> However, I've used "-O2" previously and had no problems with this test. Possibly,
> some of these new LTO and GRAPHITE capabilities of GCC are to blame, even though
> I do not compile the ucbtest with either LTO or GRAPHITE enabled. But GCC has itself
> been compiled using LTO and GRAPHITE.
> Anyway, thanks for all who actually ran the test on their machines. I was
> thinking of filing bug reports with GLIBC and GCC and that would have turned
> out to be foolish. I did check the Changelogs for GLIBC and there doesn't seem
> to have been any modification of the cabs() code over the last several versions.
> Frank Peters
I'm using -O2 here on all my machines. Certainly it isn't that option
that causes a problem for everyone. Sounds like something specific to
your processor revision.