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 1QagRP-0007tN-4M for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 03:55:23 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 298411C0B7; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 03:54:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qw0-f53.google.com (mail-qw0-f53.google.com [209.85.216.53]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF0981C0B7 for ; Sun, 26 Jun 2011 03:54:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qwb7 with SMTP id 7so2543755qwb.40 for ; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:54:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=arzIQuCCFASlW4aSeS6Ef4+8HyFi1+3jobtFeYDKEcw=; b=TGz6VnOdRVQkAZZbK2kQxoAUYOx1OEdaG2FR2m8fqHT6Frp9eCQhgV/9mk5VQfT03P 2HUCyCi2gd1ajA3A+bjgcORUi+fvRMMw298mB+b7ahGWf3/NH7WM2yVHZWhA7E8Nb0cm 0oHdJrwrf4XjufevOs4vUqTPC3q+8rzxh2Ds4= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=mIPSXSErq2C75B8dZWZyp7X86cZqey5q9XSP5O/TXDNmyRajwYiWjUMED3Ksq44zde FLoVTCMCP7b2cwn4XhqdF178bedHR7uiAbuiOqAWkZai7LUu3nUl+jAozkfWS9+lLhCr toivN22AN7aVvVYo/Jbx2n8GRmXskyUGLG+V4= 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 Received: by 10.224.221.83 with SMTP id ib19mr2737508qab.28.1309060450352; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:54:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.61.14 with HTTP; Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:54:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20110625234418.a66f8d7b.frank.peters@comcast.net> References: <20110625134111.5c6b08dd.frank.peters@comcast.net> <20110625234418.a66f8d7b.frank.peters@comcast.net> Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:54:10 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Possible Math Problem - Request For Verification [Solved] From: Mark Knecht To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 513fbe4ea6d206662680d5cab5272936 On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Frank Peters wr= ote: > 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 70= 1 for double >> > > The culprit seems to be GCC optimization. =C2=A0If I run the test with ei= ther "-O0" > or "-O1" flags I can eliminate the cabsd failure. =C2=A0Using "-O2" or "-= O3" will > result in the cabsd error. > > However, I've used "-O2" previously and had no problems with this test. = =C2=A0Possibly, > 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. =C2=A0B= ut GCC has itself > been compiled using LTO and GRAPHITE. > > Anyway, thanks for all who actually ran the test on their machines. =C2= =A0I was > thinking of filing bug reports with GLIBC and GCC and that would have tur= ned > out to be foolish. =C2=A0I did check the Changelogs for GLIBC and there d= oesn't seem > to have been any modification of the cabs() code over the last several ve= rsions. > > 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. Take care, Mark