On Saturday 30 May 2009 11:55:53 Bill Hart wrote:
> What are the outstanding issues?

two were just my crappy script :) 

fulvia , is probably same as above , I goner look at it now

and the mark/sparc wierd issue that make check fails only sometimes.Its 
probably another path/script issue , as the sparcs pass the other 12 builds 
OK

cuda1 is back up , I just cant log in

Jason


>
> 2009/5/30 Jason Moxham <[email protected]>:
> > It would of been faster to write a new itanium asm version of MPN_ZERO :)
> >
> > I nearly finished testing on skynet
> > eno,menas,mark,cicero,sage,varro,mark2,cleo,iras,cato,fulvia
> > and
> > box1,2,3,modular.jmu
> > I can't login to cuda1 at the moment , is it back up yet?
> >
> > I've tested all the installed gcc's,cc's , with and without fat(where
> > appropriate) for
> > 1)no options
> > 2)everything
> > 3)everything+debug
> > 4)max debug
> >
> > I've excluded known broken stuff
> > itanium gcc-4.1.2  broken
> > modular.jmu g++-3.4 broken
> >
> > Just four outstanding issues on mark,mark2,fulvia
> >
> > I used a script mpirtest in svn branches/test_stuff and the
> > skynet_bash_profile to set paths
> >
> > Jason
> >
> > On Saturday 30 May 2009 11:15:11 Bill Hart wrote:
> >> I spent hours looking for a macro for the new MPN_ZERO that gcc 4.1.2
> >> would not miscompile on ia64 and I came to the conclusion one does not
> >> exist. That compiler is very broken. I checked the output of the
> >> preprocessor was correct, i.e. it wasn't misexpanding the macros. But
> >> some kind of expression parser in that version of gcc is subsequently
> >> screwing up offset addressing.
> >>
> >> To work around this issue, I have simply inserted code in the toom4
> >> and toom4 squaring code which passes make check. Basically MPIR should
> >> never be compiled on gcc 4.1.2 as one cannot make any guarantees of
> >> correct results. This happens to be the default compiler on SkyNet,
> >> but I think they probably use a later gcc whenever possible anyway.
> >> Mariah always seems keen to update to the latest gcc.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure what compiler is used on Cato. Perhaps that is gcc 4.1.2.
> >> Then again, maybe this issue is Itanium specific too.
> >>
> >> Bill.
> >>
> >> keywords : gcc 4.1.2 MPN_ZERO macro offset addressing t-div f-div make
> >> check failure toom4 mpn_toom4_mul_n hack
> >>
> >> 2009/5/29 Bill Hart <[email protected]>:
> >> > I think it is a miscompilation not just of the macro, but that
> >> > particular instance of the macro.
> >> >
> >> > To be safe I think I am going to insert a nasty hack which will use a
> >> > for loop instead of a while statement when either the machine is an
> >> > ia64 OR the gcc is 4.1.2. I'm very convinced it is a miscompilation
> >> > and not a coding bug/programmer's feature.
> >> >
> >> > Bill.
> >> >
> >> > 2009/5/29 Jason Moxham <[email protected]>:
> >> >> On Friday 29 May 2009 07:30:14 Bill Hart wrote:
> >> >>> Apparently that doesn't help.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Has the function mpn_store changed for ia64? Could this somehow be
> >> >>> what is miscompiled?
> >> >>
> >> >> The mpn_store macro is just the same as the old MPN_ZERO macro but
> >> >> with a value for zero , so MPN_ZERO in mpir-1.1 should also fail
> >> >> somehow.
> >> >>
> >> >>> It is remarkable that no permutation of things around that line
> >> >>> (except compiling without optimisation) seems to cause it to work.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Bill.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2009/5/29 Jason Moxham <[email protected]>:
> >> >>> > try it as
> >> >>> > mpn_store(r3+1,t4-2,0)
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > as the new MPN_ZERO is a macro to mpn store
> >> >>> > it may help!!!
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > On Friday 29 May 2009 00:41:27 Bill Hart wrote:
> >> >>> >> I've tracked the bug down to a single line of code:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >>    if (n3 == 0) MPN_ZERO(r3 + 1, t4 - 2); /* Line of broken
> >> >>> >> code*/ else TC4_DENORM(r3, n3,  t4 - 1);
> >> >>> >> if (ic == 18)
> >> >>> >> {
> >> >>> >>    printf("r3[t4 - 2] = %ld\n", r3[t4 - 2]);
> >> >>> >>    printf("n3 = %ld, t4 = %ld\n", n3, t4);
> >> >>> >> }
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> prints:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> r3[t4 - 2] = -6148914691236517206
> >> >>> >> n3 = 0, t4 = 158
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> I've tried all the usual sensible things like adding extra
> >> >>> >> parentheses and braces. Compiles just fine with -O0 compilation
> >> >>> >> optimization.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Just for kicks, here is the definition of TC4_DENORM:
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> /* Zero out limbs to end of integer */
> >> >>> >> #define TC4_DENORM(rxx, nxx, sxx) \
> >> >>> >>         do { \
> >> >>> >>         MPN_ZERO(rxx + ABS(nxx), sxx - ABS(nxx)); \
> >> >>> >>         } while (0)
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> As you see, it cannot touch nxx.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> This is surely quite a broken compiler!
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> Bill.
> >> >>> >>
> >> >>> >> 2009/5/28 Bill Hart <[email protected]>:
> >> >>> >> > Even if I switch on all the compiler optimisations that the man
> >> >>> >> > pages say are switched on by -O1 it still passes make check.
> >> >>> >> > The diff of the assembly output between the two (-O1 versus all
> >> >>> >> > the optimisations it says it uses) for toom4_mul_n.c is about
> >> >>> >> > 90,000 lines!! This is just stupid. How is one supposed to fix
> >> >>> >> > bugs like this!?
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > Bill.
> >> >>> >> >
> >> >>> >> > 2009/5/28 Bill Hart <[email protected]>:
> >> >>> >> >> No problems with gcc 4.4.0. Only a problem with gcc 4.1.2.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> Bill.
> >> >>> >> >>
> >> >>> >> >> 2009/5/28 Bill Hart <[email protected]>:
> >> >>> >> >>> It fails in iras as well, which is also ia64.
> >> >>> >> >>>
> >> >>> >> >>> I tried the optimisations one by one and none of them
> >> >>> >> >>> triggered it on their own. This is *nuts*.
> >> >>> >> >>>
> >> >>> >> >>> Bill.
>
> 


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"mpir-devel" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/mpir-devel?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to