Hi John,
>>> The likely cause is __float128 operations being performed as "double
>>> precision"
>>> of two __float80 by the Intel math library for x86_64. Memcheck-3.8.1
>>> implements
>>> __float80 operations as __float64 (ordinary IEEE-754 'double'.)
>
>> Thanks for analyzing this! I assume
On 09/26/2013 04:47 PM, John Reiser wrote:
>>> The likely cause is __float128 operations being performed as "double
>>> precision"
>>> of two __float80 by the Intel math library for x86_64. Memcheck-3.8.1
>>> implements
>>> __float80 operations as __float64 (ordinary IEEE-754 'double'.)
>
>> Th
>> The likely cause is __float128 operations being performed as "double
>> precision"
>> of two __float80 by the Intel math library for x86_64. Memcheck-3.8.1
>> implements
>> __float80 operations as __float64 (ordinary IEEE-754 'double'.)
> Thanks for analyzing this! I assume this means that a
Hi John,
>> When run directly, the output is
>>
>> 3fbc79ca10c9242235d511e976394d7a
>>
>> When run through valgrind, the output is:
>
>> 3fbc79ca10c9240e12445f20
>
> This has been entered as bug https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=325328 .
> The likely cause is __float128 operations bein
> When run directly, the output is
>
> 3fbc79ca10c9242235d511e976394d7a
>
> When run through valgrind, the output is:
> 3fbc79ca10c9240e12445f20
This has been entered as bug https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=325328 .
The likely cause is __float128 operations being performed as "doub
On 2013-09-25 06:59, Vasily Golubev wrote:
> It may be helpful to test Valgrind's trunk from svn repository, at first.
I am sure this would be a very quick test for you. For me this would be
a lot of work as I don't have a trunk version of valgrind handy.
Cheers,
Peter.
> On Tue, Sep 24, 201
Hi John,
When I tried to create a bug report, it gave me an "invalid username"
complaint. So I will attach the source file here instead.
Compile with:
g++ valgrindbug.cc -limf -L/path/to/intel/libs
It requires libimf.a, which is part of the Intel C++ or fortran
compiler. I used the version
It may be helpful to test Valgrind's trunk from svn repository, at first.
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 7:55 PM, John Reiser wrote:
>> __float128 exp10(__float128);
>>
>> When that routine is called with a negative argument, the return value
>> changes when I run the code through valgrind, e.g.
>>
>> -
> __float128 exp10(__float128);
>
> When that routine is called with a negative argument, the return value
> changes when I run the code through valgrind, e.g.
>
> -20 3fbc79ca10c9242235d511e976394d7a (without valgrind)
> -20 3fbc79ca10c9240e12445f20 (with valgrind)
>
> The -20 is the a
Hi,
I am developing a set of unit tests, which I would also like to run
through valgrind from time to time. On their own the unit tests run
absolutely fine, but when I run them through valgrind I get zillions of
failed tests. I tracked this down to an overloaded routine (called
exp10) which re
10 matches
Mail list logo
