From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1QagJ2-0006LB-VB for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 03:46:45 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D35731C045; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 03:44:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from qmta05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.30.48]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5E41C045 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 03:44:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.11]) by qmta05.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 0TkG1h0060EPchoA5TkHLC; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 03:44:17 +0000 Received: from ajax ([24.11.47.14]) by omta01.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id 0TkX1h01G0JMh7c8MTkY3s; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 03:44:33 +0000 Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 23:44:18 -0400 From: Frank Peters To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Possible Math Problem - Request For Verification [Solved] Message-Id: <20110625234418.a66f8d7b.frank.peters@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: <20110625134111.5c6b08dd.frank.peters@comcast.net> References: <20110625134111.5c6b08dd.frank.peters@comcast.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.1.1 (GTK+ 2.24.5; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 3983ea7269def69b83f7d54c97fafda2 On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:41:11 -0400 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