--- Comment #3 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-09-06 14:18 ---
So I don't know what else to say
mark as duplicate of PR 323?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37390
--- Comment #4 from niklaus at gmail dot com 2008-09-06 17:42 ---
On the below version of gcc on cygwin (winXP SP3) i don't have any problems
with optimization on or off. They produce consistent correct result. Why is it
a problem with linux ? or am i doing something wrong.
I tried
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 6, 2008, at 10:42, niklaus at gmail dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Comment #4 from niklaus at gmail dot com 2008-09-06 17:42
---
On the below version of gcc on cygwin (winXP SP3) i don't have any
problems
with optimization on or off. They
--- Comment #5 from pinskia at gmail dot com 2008-09-06 17:56 ---
Subject: Re: wrong-code on i486-linux-gnu with -O[12], -O0 works
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 6, 2008, at 10:42, niklaus at gmail dot com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
--- Comment #4 from niklaus at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-06 18:01 ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 323 ***
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #7 from niklaus at gmail dot com 2008-09-06 18:28 ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Subject: Re: wrong-code on i486-linux-gnu with -O[12], -O0 works
Because on x86 gnu/Linux, the precision is set to 80bits rather than
64bit like it is on windows.
Does increasing bits
--- Comment #8 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2008-09-06 18:42 ---
(In reply to comment #7)
Does increasing bits cause floating point errors. How could 64 bit precison
give correct result where as 80 bit give incorrect one.
You can have rounding errors whether you increase the
--- Comment #9 from brian at dessent dot net 2008-09-06 20:31 ---
Subject: Re: wrong-code on i486-linux-gnu with -O[12], -O0
works
pinskia at gmail dot com wrote:
Because on x86 gnu/Linux, the precision is set to 80bits rather than
64bit like it is on windows.
That is only true
--- Comment #10 from niklaus at gmail dot com 2008-09-06 21:23 ---
(In reply to comment #8)
(In reply to comment #7)
Does increasing bits cause floating point errors. How could 64 bit precison
give correct result where as 80 bit give incorrect one.
You can have rounding errors
--- Comment #11 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2008-09-06 22:19 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
The funny thing is that this only happens with -O2 or -O1 but not with -O0 ie
no optimization it is all correct , when we optimize the results start
varying.
Because with -O0, some values
--- Comment #1 from doko at ubuntu dot com 2008-09-05 22:43 ---
Created an attachment (id=16238)
-- (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=16238action=view)
example
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37390
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-09-05 22:54 ---
I think this is really PR 323. Using -ffloat-store gives the correct answer.
D.2639 = pow ((double) a, (double) b + 1.0e+0);
num = (ull) D.2639 - 1.0e+0;
So I don't know what else to say, except -ffloat-store
12 matches
Mail list logo
