On Fri, 14 Apr 2006, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Uwe Ligges had the same problem with gcc 3.3.1 on SuSE 9.0. So I
>> installed gcc 3.3.5 from the sources on an i386 box, and was able to
>> reproduce it.
>>
>> It is an optimization bug. The crucial c
Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Uwe Ligges had the same problem with gcc 3.3.1 on SuSE 9.0. So I
> installed gcc 3.3.5 from the sources on an i386 box, and was able to
> reproduce it.
>
> It is an optimization bug. The crucial code is
>
> xtrunc = tx;/* this prevents
Uwe Ligges had the same problem with gcc 3.3.1 on SuSE 9.0. So I
installed gcc 3.3.5 from the sources on an i386 box, and was able to
reproduce it.
It is an optimization bug. The crucial code is
xtrunc = tx;/* this prevents trouble with excess FPU */
On 10 April 2006 at 14:31, Bjørn-Helge Mevik wrote:
| Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
|
| > Fair point, especially as you have to insist on using gcc 3.3.* on Debian:
| > -- 3.3.6 is the current 3.3.* one whereas Bjørn-Helge used 3.3.5
| > -- 3.4.5 is the latest 3.* one supplanting 3.3.(5,6)
| > -- 4.0.
Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote:
> Fair point, especially as you have to insist on using gcc 3.3.* on Debian:
> -- 3.3.6 is the current 3.3.* one whereas Bjørn-Helge used 3.3.5
> -- 3.4.5 is the latest 3.* one supplanting 3.3.(5,6)
> -- 4.0.3 is the current default
> -- 4.1.0 is available too
>
> That app
On 10 April 2006 at 10:06, Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
| Since that compiler is not even the last in the 3.3.x series, and there
| are now three later (released) gcc series, I think we have to write that
| off to an optimization bug in gcc 3.3.x.
Fair point, especially as you have to insist on usi
Since that compiler is not even the last in the 3.3.x series, and there
are now three later (released) gcc series, I think we have to write that
off to an optimization bug in gcc 3.3.x.
On Mon, 10 Apr 2006, Bjørn-Helge Mevik wrote:
Peter Dalgaard wrote:
I don't see it with a current version
Peter Dalgaard wrote:
> I don't see it with a current version either. What happens if you
> reduce the optimization level? (I've tried both "-g" and -g "-O3").
> Is that -std=gnu99 bit necessary?
My gcc is gcc (GCC) 3.3.5 (Debian 1:3.3.5-13).
I've now tried with ./configure CFLAGS="-g [-O|-O2|-O
Prof Brian Ripley wrote:
> I am not seeing it on my platforms (FC3 x86_64 and i686 Linux with gcc
> 3.4.5 and 4.1.0, i386 Windows and Solaris, with various compilers) and
> the zero-finder changes postdate r37675 (and qbeta does not use it). I
> think several other people are testing i686 Debian,
Prof Brian Ripley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Source directory: .
> >> Installation directory:/usr/local
> >>
> >> C compiler:gcc -g -O2 -std=gnu99
> >> Fortran 77 compiler: g77 -g -O2
> >>
> >> C++ compiler: g++ -g -O2
> >> Fortr
On Sun, 9 Apr 2006, Peter Dalgaard wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bjørn-Helge Mevik) writes:
make check of R-alpha_2006-04-08_r37675 fails on Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 running
on an Intel P4 computer.
version
_
platform i686-pc-linux-gnu
arch i686
os linux-g
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bjørn-Helge Mevik) writes:
> make check of R-alpha_2006-04-08_r37675 fails on Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 running
> on an Intel P4 computer.
>
> > version
>_
> platform i686-pc-linux-gnu
> arch
make check of R-alpha_2006-04-08_r37675 fails on Debian GNU/Linux 3.1 running
on an Intel P4 computer.
> version
_
platform i686-pc-linux-gnu
arch i686
os linux
13 matches
Mail list logo
