On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 8:44 PM, Frank Peters <frank.pet...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 13:41:11 -0400 > Frank Peters <frank.pet...@comcast.net> wrote: > >> >> /tmp/fp-test-results/clib_DP.output: ucbtest UCBFAIL in cabsd at line 701 >> for double >> > > The culprit seems to be GCC optimization. If I run the test with either "-O0" > or "-O1" flags I can eliminate the cabsd failure. Using "-O2" or "-O3" will > result in the cabsd error. > > However, I've used "-O2" previously and had no problems with this test. > Possibly, > some of these new LTO and GRAPHITE capabilities of GCC are to blame, even > though > I do not compile the ucbtest with either LTO or GRAPHITE enabled. But GCC > has itself > been compiled using LTO and GRAPHITE. > > Anyway, thanks for all who actually ran the test on their machines. I was > thinking of filing bug reports with GLIBC and GCC and that would have turned > out to be foolish. I did check the Changelogs for GLIBC and there doesn't > seem > to have been any modification of the cabs() code over the last several > versions. > > Frank Peters
I'm using -O2 here on all my machines. Certainly it isn't that option that causes a problem for everyone. Sounds like something specific to your processor revision. Take care, Mark
