Re: LAPACK failures

[Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at verizon dot net>]

On Sun, 2005-01-02 at 22:53 +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> > Seems to be in the complex routines.  Should I try to pull previous
> > snapshots out of cvs to see when this may have happened?
> 
> That would be great.  There were some changes to complex routines
> recently, and I have a sneaking feeling that old Fortran codes
> are the only ones that really strain the complex routines.
> 
> A Lapack regression tester would be ideal for this.  Does anybody
> have code to run this?
> 
> 	Thomas

OK, playing with several different dated versions and compiler options,
I discover this on a P4 (i686-pc-linux gnu).

Using -O0 -g instead of -O -pipe -g with:

Configured with: ../gcc/configure --prefix=/home/jerry/usr -enable-languages=c,f95
Thread model: posix
gcc version 4.0.0 20050103 (experimental)

Gives the following which is not so bad:

 CST:    1 out of  4662 tests failed to pass the threshold
 CLS drivers:   1941 out of  65268 tests failed to pass the threshold
 DES:    1 out of  3270 tests failed to pass the threshold
 DSX:    1 out of  3500 tests failed to pass the threshold
 DXV drivers:    200 out of   5000 tests failed to pass the threshold
 SXV drivers:     37 out of   5000 tests failed to pass the threshold
 SST:    1 out of  4662 tests failed to pass the threshold
 SST drivers:      1 out of  14256 tests failed to pass the threshold
 ZGV drivers:      1 out of   1092 tests failed to pass the threshold
 ZXV drivers:     24 out of   5000 tests failed to pass the threshold

I added the above to PR#5900 which shows some modest improvement in the CLS drivers.
Seems things are very sensitive to compiler switches.  (or the dummy at the wheel)

-- Jerry