Re: m4-1.4.9b on HP-UX 11

[Gary V. Vaughan]

Hi Bruno,


  flags, when it clearly causes NaN regressions?]]

On 3 Jun 2007, at 01:48, Bruno Haible wrote:

[[Cc:ing Albert Chin: Albert, why do we need +Onofltacc in the standard hpux11.23

Gary V. Vaughan wrote in
  http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2007-06/msg00005.html

but they don't came into my mailbox. And I have no spam filter.]

[For some reason, I can see your last 3 mails on gmane and on lists.gnu.org,

With CC=cc CFLAGS="-z +O2 +Onofltacc +Olit=all +Oentrysched +Odataprefetch \

+Onolimit" LDFLAGS="-Wl,+nodefaultrpath":

1.000000 33
test-vasprintf-posix.c:1239: assertion failed

FAIL: test-vasprintf-posix


LDFLAGS="-Wl,+nodefaultrpath":

  -nan 33
  -nan 33
  PASS: test-vasprintf-posix

/opt/fsw/bash30/bin/bash: line 1: 12683 ABORT instruction (core dumped) EXEEXT='' EXEEXT='' EXEEXT='' srcdir='.' EXEEXT='' srcdir='.' EXEEXT='' srcdir='.' ${dir}$tst With CC=cc CFLAGS="-z +O2 +Olit=all +Oentrysched +Odataprefetch +Onolimit" \

This makes it pretty clear that +Onofltacc is the culprit.

Do you think the test is at fault here?

the compilers.

No; dividing zero by zero *must* give a NaN according to IEEE 754. This is not the kind of "undefined behaviour" that may be optimized randomly by

Or is it an hpux compiler bug?

snippet you posted.

Whether it's an HP-UX compiler bug or whether it's you who are willfully choosing a non-IEEE-754-compliant compiler by using the option +Onofltacc, depends on the HP compiler's documentation. I can not judge it by the small

The fact that it breaks this test only on hpux11.23 when the same flags do not break it on hpux11.11 and hpux11.00 makes me think it is a compiler bug.

we've made it a standard flag for compilations on hpux in order for
other FLOSS projects to build correctly

source code so that it compiles with default flags, more than for some

I consider "cc -Ae" the default.)

It sounds surprising that some projects _require_ a particular optimization in order to build correctly?! But it any case, I'm more inclined to adapt pretty aggressive vendor-specific optimization flags. (Here for HP- UX cc

ACK.  Thanks for your input.

Cheers,
        Gary
--
  ())_.              Email me: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ( '/           Read my blog: http://blog.azazil.net
  / )=         ...and my book: http://sources.redhat.com/autobook
`(_~)_ Join my AGLOCO Network: http://www.agloco.com/r/BBBS7912

PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part