http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47692
Summary: Numeric inaccuracy reported in testing lapack-3.3.0
BLAS module
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
AssignedTo: unassig...@gcc.gnu.org
ReportedBy: j...@worldlinc.net
A number of BLAS testing results were not clean. Some results were reported to
be suspect and others were reported to be fatal errors. Here's a paste of one
such result:
******* FATAL ERROR - COMPUTED RESULT IS LESS THAN HALF ACCURATE *******
EXPECTED RESULT COMPUTED RESULT
1 ( 0.551243 , -0.533049E-01) ( 0.551243 , -0.533049E-01)
2 ( -0.816325E-01, 0.389502 ) ( -0.816325E-01, 0.389502 )
******* CGEMV FAILED ON CALL NUMBER:
10: CGEMV ('N', 2, 1,( 0.7,-0.9), A, 3, X, 1,( 0.0, 0.0), Y, 1)
.
I don't know why BLAS routines didn't test cleanly, but it appears that most
severe results were in Complex Level I BLAS. There are some REAL and DOUBLE
problems too. This is a well-established numeric library that as I recall
tested cleanly with gfortran 4.4.5.
The results from testing BLAS and Lapack are in two text files that I can make
available, though independent verification is of course needed for this.
