From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31909 invoked by uid 1002); 2 Mar 2003 16:10:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gentoo-dev-help@gentoo.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Received: (qmail 31329 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2003 16:10:05 -0000 From: "Riyad Kalla" To: , Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 08:58:05 -0700 Message-ID: <001001c2e0d4$834bb2a0$0200000a@rsk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.3416 In-Reply-To: <33105.192.168.0.9.1046615828.squirrel@mail.codewordt.co.uk> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: RE: [gentoo-dev] -pentium4 vs -pentium3 X-Archives-Salt: e66c02e9-3006-4c02-83a0-44e23294173f X-Archives-Hash: 9e441615a7f2ef6426b587701ec178fe I second these two questions... -----Original Message----- From: Dhruba Bandopadhyay [mailto:dhruba@codewordt.co.uk] Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 7:37 AM To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] -pentium4 vs -pentium3 Jeff Kowing said: > Robert, I was bit by at least one of the problems a while back. It > seems that some of the floating point code is not quite right yet for > pentium4. I believe this is a gcc and maybe glibc issue. The > particular example that caused me problems is the glibc modf() > function. See > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=27211&highlight=python+float > for more info and a sample c program that will highlight the problem. > > It was suggested at the time by Nick Jones (see > http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/23056) that I back > down to pentium2. I haven't updated my portage recently, so I > haven't looked at what the new updated make.conf file suggests but I > definitely would follow any advice it gives. I'm also using P4 and have not faced any problems. Would changing to P3 result in any noticeable drop in performance? Also, has gcc 3.2.2 compensated for this problem at all in comparison to previous releases? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list