This is going to be a bit of a nightmare to track. Could it be settings or procedure dependent?
Christian. On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Ingo Macherius<[email protected]> wrote: > Problem can not be reprosuced on Linux x86_64 with gcc 4.3 either, despite > heavy Optimization flags used. All gnubg settings are compile time default. > > gcc version 4.3.2 (Debian 4.3.2-1.1) > Target: x86_64-linux-gnu > > gcc -pipe -combine -march=core2 -O3 -funsafe-loop-optimizations > -funsafe-math-optimizations -ffast-math -freciprocal-math -ftree-vectorize > -mfpmath=sse -mssse3 -msse3 -msse -msse2 -fomit-frame-pointer -msahf > > (inim)set gnubgid NwAAgN3MAGgBAA:cAnmAEAAIAAA > [...] > (inim) hint 1 > 1. Cubeful 0-ply 21/17 19/18 MWC: 22.81% > 0.000 0.000 0.000 - 1.000 1.000 0.085 > 0-ply cubeful [expert] > Ingo > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael > Petch > Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:44 AM > To: Zulli, Louis P > Cc: [email protected]; Øystein Johansen; [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug? > > > I can confirm Zulli’s findings as well. On the MAC the issue doesn’t exist > (Intel with OS/X 10.5.7). Pruning doesn’t alter the behavior (It just works > as expected) I used both version of GCC on apple (4.0.1 and 4.2.1): > > On 04/08/09 7:42 PM, "Zulli, Louis P" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Anyway, with Pruning On or Off and at all ply levels I seem to get 21/17 > 19/18 being best. > > Maybe there's a gcc-4.3 related problem? Maybe I'll try Intel's icc later. > > Louis > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-gnubg mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg > > _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
