A simple program gives incorrect floating point results when compiled with the -O flag. The complete source code is in the How-To-Repeat section below. This program prints "error" when compiled with -O; clearly wrong. The unoptimized code correctly prints no output. Also, if I try to print out the value of y2 before the comparison with y, then the correct value is output, and there is no "error" message, even when the code is optimized. In other words, interposing a print statement between the declaration (and initialization) of y2 and the comparison changes the program behavior. The error disappears for certain different values of the numerical constants. The error also goes away when an "l" suffix is appended to the two 1.0 constants. However, it is also possible to create the same type of error using only variables and no numerical constants in the assignments to y and y2; in this situation there is no "l" suffix workaround. The gzipped .ii file is attached. Here is the output of gcc: > /usr/local/bin/gcc -v --save-temps -O bug.C Reading specs from /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.2/specs gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release) /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.2/cpp -lang-c++ -v -D__GNUC__=2 -D__GNUG__=2 -D__GNUC_MINOR__=95 -D__cplusplus -D__ELF__ -Dunix -D__i386__ -Dlinux -D__ELF__ -D__unix__ -D__i386__ -D__linux__ -D__unix -D__linux -Asystem(posix) -D__EXCEPTIONS -D__OPTIMIZE__ -Acpu(i386) -Amachine(i386) -Di386 -D__i386 -D__i386__ -Di686 -Dpentiumpro -D__i686 -D__i686__ -D__pentiumpro -D__pentiumpro__ bug.C bug.ii GNU CPP version 2.95.2 19991024 (release) (i386 Linux/ELF) #include "..." search starts here: #include <...> search starts here: /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.2/../../../../include/g++-3 /usr/local/include /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.2/../../../../i686-pc-linux-gnu/include /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.2/include /usr/include End of search list. The following default directories have been omitted from the search path: End of omitted list. /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.2/cc1plus bug.ii -quiet -dumpbase bug.cc -O -version -o bug.s GNU C++ version 2.95.2 19991024 (release) (i686-pc-linux-gnu) compiled by GNU C version 2.95.2 19991024 (release). as -V -Qy -o bug.o bug.s GNU assembler version 2.9.1 (i386-redhat-linux), using BFD version 2.9.1.0.24 /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.2/collect2 -m elf_i386 -dynamic-linker /lib/ld-linux.so.2 /usr/lib/crt1.o /usr/lib/crti.o /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.2/crtbegin.o -L/usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.2 -L/usr/local/lib bug.o -lgcc -lc -lgcc /usr/local/lib/gcc-lib/i686-pc-linux-gnu/2.95.2/crtend.o /usr/lib/crtn.o Release: gcc version 2.95.2 19991024 (release) Environment: (Red Hat) Linux 2.2.12-20, i686 pc How-To-Repeat: #include <stdio.h> void test(double x, double y) { const double y2 = x + 1.0; if (y != y2) printf("error\n"); } void main() { const double x = .012; const double y = x + 1.0; test(x, y); }
Fix: This bug is elusive and only occurs for certain floating point values. It goes away by tweaking the program in various ways (e.g. printing out the value of y2 before comparing it) or by compiling unoptimized.
State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-Why: See any faq on numerical analysis that mentions the x86. You are seeing the results of excess precision in the FPU. Either change the rounding precision in the FPCR, or work around the problem with -ffloat-store.
From: rth@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org, mirtich@merl.com, nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: Subject: Re: optimization/323 Date: 16 Jan 2001 14:30:04 -0000 Synopsis: optimized code gives strange floating point results State-Changed-From-To: open->closed State-Changed-By: rth State-Changed-When: Tue Jan 16 06:30:04 2001 State-Changed-Why: See any faq on numerical analysis that mentions the x86. You are seeing the results of excess precision in the FPU. Either change the rounding precision in the FPCR, or work around the problem with -ffloat-store. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view&pr=323&database=gcc
*** Bug 11394 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 629 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 4251 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 6900 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 10417 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Reopening so I can mark it as ...
Invalid and so that bugzilla can pick up it for the dup count.
*** Bug 10644 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 2582 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 8606 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 6824 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 11518 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 11618 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 11655 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 11767 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 11892 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 11914 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 11934 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 12129 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 12331 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 13265 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 13890 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 14367 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 14384 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 14652 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 14989 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 15134 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 15437 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 15852 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 16223 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 16607 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 15386 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 16686 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 17802 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Excessive precision should be discarded before performing any comparison. It is done e.g. by the Intel fortran compiler. -ffloat-store rounds only the values stored in a variable, and in some situations may trigger instead of suppressing the bug. Existing numerical software packages (e.g. LAPACK and SLATEC fortran libraries) fail their tests with gcc just due to this issue. So it is a bug, even if almost all other compilers reproduce it. If you refer me to a FAQ on numerical analysis, please note that the FAQ states things as they are, and not as they should be.
Some musings based on my encounter with this bug... Comparison of doubles is not just restricted to numerical analysis. Bug report 17802 (aka #323) arose out of a binary search of a timer queue. Is it wrong to assume that if "int secs = 2" and "int usecs = 100000" then "secs + 1e-6 * usecs" will return the same result every time it is evaluated as an inline function? Calling a trivial function twice with an identical parameter may return a value less than, equal to or greater than itself (depending on register allocation in the context of the calls). This is a really nasty piece of nondeterministic behaviour. Weren't compilers and "high level" languages invented to get around exactly this kind of hardware dependency? Compiling with -ffloat-store did not help in my case. Compiling without -O isn't always possible either. Since the function that causes the problem is the trivial calculation above, inlined for performance, I can't guarrantee that every user of the header file it appears in will know to compile without -O (or be willing to). The outcome will be users reporting a bug in my code. This bug is being reported regularly, and probably affecting a lot more people that don't report it.
*** Bug 18567 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 18756 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
To summarize, this defect effectively states that: assert( (x/y) == (x/y) ) may cause an assertion if compiled with optimization. While I understand why it happens, that doesn't mean it isn't a defect. This makes it impossible to turn on the optimizer with any code using floating point and still expect to get a correct result. Perhaps in some situations this is okay, but in general this is not. This would also mean the following are also invalid code -- which I'm fairly certain the C/C++ standards would state otherwise: a = (x/y); assert( a == x/y ) //may Abort if( a == x/y ) assert( a == x/y ) //may Abort
*** Bug 18784 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 19011 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 19469 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 19675 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 19837 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 20026 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 20674 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 7719 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #2) > State-Changed-From-To: open->closed > State-Changed-Why: See any faq on numerical analysis that mentions the x86. > You are seeing the results of excess precision in the FPU. > Either change the rounding precision in the FPCR, or work > around the problem with -ffloat-store. > I had this bug on x86 architecture, with no optimization of the code (no -OX) and with float-store on. My workaround was to store the return of the double function in a auxliar double variable before comparison. Have you an other suggestion ?
(In reply to comment #59) > > I had this bug on x86 architecture, with no optimization of the code (no -OX) > and with float-store on. My workaround was to store the return of the double > function in a auxliar double variable before comparison. > Have you an other suggestion ? > The way I've "fixed" (more like avoided) this problem is to have: #include <fpu_control.h> void set_math_double_precision() { fpu_control_t fpu_control = 0x027f ; _FPU_SETCW(fpu_control); } and make sure this function is called before doing any FP operations. It only needs to be called once. Richard.
*** Bug 21809 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Reopening...
...to end this pointless discussion. Some people call this a bug in the x87 series. Other call it a bug in gcc. See these mails at least for the reason why this could be considered a bug in gcc: http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-08/msg01195.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-08/msg01234.html http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2003-08/msg01257.html Regardless of where one wishes to put the blame, this problem will _not_ be fixed. Period.
*** Bug 1098 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 22394 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 23298 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 23407 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 23318 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 24014 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 24387 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 24479 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 7935 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 25303 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 26000 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 28191 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 16825 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 29597 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 30255 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
The option -ffloat-store, recommended by Richard Henderson, has the effect of decreasing the performance of floating-point operations for the entire compilation unit. If you want a minimal fix that does not affect other functions in the same compilation unit, you can use 'volatile double' instead of 'double'. It's like a one-shot -ffloat-store. Example: #include <stdio.h> void test(double x, double y) { const volatile double y2 = x + 1.0; if (y != y2) printf("error\n"); } void main() { const double x = .012; const double y = x + 1.0; test(x, y); }
> const volatile double y2 = x + 1.0; I'd also favor this "selective" approach, because the instability is harmless in most cases. But it is dangerous sometimes, as mentioned in the binary search or when sorting, where the faulty cmpfn() could turn the sort function to infinite loop. So, could you please advise a body of hypothetical double discard_extended_precision(double a); function (possibly some 387 FP insn?) that reliably truncates the argument to 64bit? Would inline double discard_extended_precision(volatile double a) { return a; } do the trick?
*** Bug 30752 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 31008 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 31114 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I'd like to welcome the newest members of the bug 323 community, where all x87 floating point errors in gcc come to die! All floating point errors that use the x87 are welcome, despite the fact that many of them are easily fixable, and many are not! We're all one happy family, making the egregious mistake of wanting accuracy out of the most accurate general purpose FPU on the market! Cheers, Clint
I think that Uros' patch to add a -mpc switch for precision control would "fix" this. The real fix would be to automatically insert fldcw instructions before float/double operations, in order to limit the precision of the operations. But I think that it would kill speed even more than -ffloat-store.
> I think that Uros' patch to add a -mpc switch for precision control would > "fix" this. > The real fix would be to automatically insert fldcw instructions before > float/double operations, in order to limit the precision of the operations. > But I think that it would kill speed even more than -ffloat-store. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. The -mpc switch and the fldcw instructions control the size of the significant, but they don't control the range of the exponent. So it will solve the issue with the first testcase of this bug-report, but you could still build examples where two execution paths that perform the same floating-point computations produce completely different results.
The following paper explains how this kind of behaviour occurs, why it is "correct", why it is difficult to fix but how it can be partly fixed, and how this breaks many testing and proving techniques: http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00128124
*** Bug 32391 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 32976 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 33611 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 34616 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 34951 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 34992 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 35389 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Subject: RE: optimized code gives strange floating point results Not sure this is the same issues as 323. All three numbers, 8, 1 and 65, should be able to represented in IEEE 754 floating-point format exactly without any rounding or approximation. That is 8 = 1* 2^3 1 = 1* 2^0 65 = (1 + 1/64) * 2^6 -----Original Message----- From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [mailto:gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org] Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 12:39 PM To: Wei, Yongbin Subject: [Bug rtl-optimization/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results ------- Comment #103 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2008-02-27 20:38 ------- *** Bug 35389 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- CC| |ywei at qualcomm dot com http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323 ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.
*** Bug 35488 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 35489 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 35585 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I also encountered such problems and was going to report it as a bug in GCC... But in the GCC bug (not) reporting guide, there is fortunately a link to this page and here (comment #96) is a link to David Monniaux's paper about floating-point computations. This explains it closely but it is maybe too long. I have almost read it and hope I have understood it properly. So I'll give a brief explanation (for those who don't know it yet) of the reasons of such a strange behaviour. Then I'll assess where the bug actually is (in GCC or CPU). Then I'll write the solution (!) and finally a few recommendations to the GCC team. EXPLANATION The x87 FPU was originally designed in (or before) 1980. I think that's why it is quite simple: it has only one unit for all FP data types. Of course, the precision must be of the widest type, which is the 80-bit long double. Consider you have a program, where all the FP variables are of the type double. You perform some FP operations and one of them is e.g. 1e-300/1e300, which results in 1e-600. Despite this value cannot be held by a "double", it is stored in an 80-bit FPU register as the result. Consider you use the variable "x" to hold that result. If the program has been compiled with optimization, the value need not be stored in RAM. So, say, it is still in the register. Consider you need x to be nonzero, so you perform the test x != 0. Since 1e-600 is not zero, the test yields true. While you perform some other computations, the value is moved to RAM and converted to 0 because x is of type "double". Now you want to use your certainly nonzero x... Hard luck :-( Note that if the result doesn't have its corresponding variable and you perform the test directly on an expression, the problem can come to light even without optimization. It could seem that performing all FP operations in extended precision can bring benefits only. But it introduces a serious pitfall: moving a value may change the value!!! WHERE'S THE BUG This is really not a GCC bug. The bug is actually in the x87 FPU because it doesn't obey the IEEE standard. SOLUTION The x87 FPU is still present in contemporary processors (including AMD) due to compatibility. I think most of PC software still uses it. But new processors have also another FPU, called SSE, and this do obey the IEEE. GCC in 32-bit mode compiles for x87 by default but it is able to compile for the SSE, too. So the solution is to add these options to the compilation command: -march=* -msse -mfpmath=sse Yes, this definitely resolves the problem - but not for all processors. The * can be one of the following: pentium3, pentium3m, pentium-m, pentium4, pentium4m, prescott, nocona, athlon-4, athlon-xp, athlon-mp, k8, opteron, athlon64, athlon-fx and c3-2 (I'm unsure about athlon and athlon-tbird). Beside -msse, you can also add some of -mmmx, -msse2, -msse3 and -m3dnow, if the CPU supports them (see GCC doc or CPU doc). If you wish to compile for processors which don't have SSE, you have a few possibilities: (1) A very simple solution: Use long double everywhere. (But be careful when transfering binary data in long double format between computers because this format is not standardized and so the concrete bit representations vary between different CPU architectures.) (2) A partial but simple solution: Do comparisons on volatile variables only. (3) A similar solution: Try to implement a "discard_extended_precision" function suggested by Egon in comment #88. (4) A complex solution: Before doing any mathematical operation or comparison, put the operands into variables and put also the result to a variable (i.e. don't use complex expressions). For example, instead of { c = 2*(a+b); } , write { double s = a+b; c = 2*s; } . I'm unsure about arrays but I think they should be OK. When you have modified your code in this manner, then compile it either without optimization or, when using optimization, use -ffloat-store. In order to avoid double rounding (i.e. rounding twice), it is also good to decrease the FPU precision by changing its control word in the beginning of your program (see comment #60). Then you should also apply -frounding-math. (5) A radical solution: Find a job/hobby where computers are not used at all. RECOMMENDATIONS I think this problem is really serious and general. Therefore, programmers should be warned soon enough. This recommendation should be addressed especially to authors of programming coursebooks. But I think there could also be a paragraph about it in the GCC documentation (I haven't read it wholly but it doesn't seem there's any warning against x87). And, of course, there should be a warning in the bug reporting guide (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugs.html). It's fine there's a link to this page (Bug 323) but the example with (int)(a/b) is insufficient. It only demonstrates that real numbers are often not represented exactly in the computer. It doesn't demonstrate the x87 pitfall. Hence there should be an example such as the initial code of this "GCC bug 323 report". Because when one sees the example with (int)(a/b), he can say "It's trivial" and not click the link (as I did the first time). EPILOGUE I hope my effort of writing this "comment #109" will be helpful for many people. If you want more info, read the David Monniaux's work or something else about FPUs. Thanks to David Monniaux.
I used an old version of GCC documentation so I omitted some new processors with SSE: core2, k8-sse3, opteron-sse3, athlon64-sse3, amdfam10 and barcelona. I think you can use -march=pentium3 for all Intel's CPUs (of course, starting with P3). I'm unsure about AMD. (Maybe you know it better.)
(In reply to comment #109) > WHERE'S THE BUG > This is really not a GCC bug. The bug is actually in the x87 FPU because it > doesn't obey the IEEE standard. Concerning the standards: The x87 FPU does obey the IEEE754-1985 standard, which *allows* extended precision, and double precision is *available*. In fact, one could say that GCC even obeys the IEEE standard (which doesn't define bindings: the definition of "destination" page 4 of the IEEE754-1985 standard is rather vague and lets the language to define it exactly), but it doesn't obey the ISO C99 standard on some point. Concerning the x87 FPU: One can say however that the x87 is a badly designed because it is not possible to statically specify the precision. Nevertheless the OS/language implementations should take care of this problem. Note: the solution chosen by some OS'es (*BSD, MS-Windows...) is to configure the processor to the IEEE double precision by default (thus "long double" is also in double precision, but this is OK as far as the C language is concerned, there's still a problem with "float", but in practice, nobody cares AFAIK). > If you wish to compile for processors which don't have SSE, you have a few > possibilities: > (1) A very simple solution: Use long double everywhere. This avoids the bug, but this is not possible for software that requires double precision exactly, e.g. XML tools that use XPath. See other examples here: http://www.vinc17.org/research/extended.en.html Also this makes maintenance of software more difficult because long double can be much slower on some platforms, which support this type in software to provide more precision (e.g. PowerPC Linux and Mac OS X implement a double-double arithmetic, Solaris and HPUX implement quadruple precision). > (But be careful when transfering binary data in long double format between > computers because this format is not standardized and so the concrete bit > representations vary between different CPU architectures.) Well, this is not specific to long double anyway: there exist 3 possible endianess for the double format (x86, PowerPC, ARM). > (2) A partial but simple solution: Do comparisons on volatile variables only. Yes (but this is also a problem concerning the maintenance of portable programs). > (4) A complex solution: [...] Yes, this is the workaround I use in practice. > RECOMMENDATIONS > I think this problem is really serious and general. Therefore, programmers > should be warned soon enough. Yes, but note that this is not the only problem with compilers. See e.g. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36578 for a bug related to casts to long double on x86_64 and ia64. This one is now tested by: http://www.vinc17.org/software/tst-ieee754.c (which has also tested bug 323 for a long time).
(In reply to comment #111) > Concerning the standards: The x87 FPU does obey the IEEE754-1985 standard, > which *allows* extended precision, and double precision is *available*. It's true that double *precision* is available on x87. But not the *IEEE-754 "double precision" type*. Beside the precision of mantissa, this includes also the range of exponent. On the x87, it is possible to set the precision of mantissa but not the range of exponent. That's why I believe it doesn't obey the IEEE. (I haven't ever seen the IEEE-754 standard but I base on the work of David Monniaux.) > Note: the solution chosen by some OS'es (*BSD, MS-Windows...) is to configure > the processor to the IEEE double precision by default (thus "long double" is > also in double precision, but this is OK as far as the C language is concerned, > there's still a problem with "float", but in practice, nobody cares AFAIK). Do you mean that on Windows, long double has (by default) no more precision than double? I don't think so (it's confirmed by my experience). According to the paper of David Monniaux, only FreeBSD 4 sets double precision by default (but I know almost nothing about BSD). > > (1) A very simple solution: Use long double everywhere. > This avoids the bug, but this is not possible for software that requires double > precision exactly, e.g. XML tools that use XPath. Yes, of course. I don't say this can be used everywhere. > > (But be careful when transfering binary data in long double format between > > computers because this format is not standardized and so the concrete bit > > representations vary between different CPU architectures.) > Well, this is not specific to long double anyway: there exist 3 possible > endianess for the double format (x86, PowerPC, ARM). OK but David Monniaux mentions portability issues just in the case of long double, so the differences are probably more frequent in this case (maybe even within the x86 architecture). > Yes, but note that this is not the only problem with compilers. See e.g. > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=36578 Thanks for info.
(In reply to comment #112) > It's true that double *precision* is available on x87. But not the *IEEE-754 > "double precision" type*. It is available when storing a result to memory. > Beside the precision of mantissa, this includes also the range of exponent. > On the x87, it is possible to set the precision of mantissa but not the range > of exponent. The IEEE754-1985 allows this. Section 4.3: "Normally, a result is rounded to the precision of its destination. However, some systems deliver results only to double or extended destinations. On such a system the user, which may be a high-level language compiler, shall be able to specify that a result be rounded instead to single precision, though it may be stored in the double or extended format with its wider exponent range. [...]" > That's why I believe it doesn't obey the IEEE. (I haven't ever seen the > IEEE-754 standard but I base on the work of David Monniaux.) See above. Also beware of subtilities in the wording used by David Monniaux. FYI, the IEEE754-1985 standard (with minor corrections) is available from the following page: http://www.validlab.com/754R/ (look at the end). AFAIK, the IEEE754-1985 standard was designed from the x87 implementation, so it would have been very surprising that x87 didn't conform to IEEE754-1985. > Do you mean that on Windows, long double has (by default) no more precision > than double? I don't think so (it's confirmed by my experience). I don't remember my original reference, but here's a new one: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa289157(vs.71).aspx In fact, this depends on the architecture. I quote: "x86. Intermediate expressions are computed at the default 53-bit precision with an extended range provided by a 16-bit exponent. When these 53:16 values are "spilled" to memory (as can happen during a function call), the extended exponent range will be narrowed to 11-bits. That is, spilled values are cast to the standard double precision format with only an 11-bit exponent. A user may switch to extended 64-bit precision for intermediate rounding by altering the floating-point control word using _controlfp and by enabling FPU environment access (see The fpenv_access Pragma). However, when extended precision register-values are spilled to memory, the intermediate results will still be rounded to double precision. This particular semantic is subject to change." Note that the behavior has changed in some version of Windows (it was using the extended precision, then it switched to double precision for x86). Now, this may also depend on the compiler. > According to the paper of David Monniaux, only FreeBSD 4 sets double > precision by default (but I know almost nothing about BSD). I've noted that amongst the BSD's, NetBSD does this too (I don't remember if I've tried or got it from some document, and this might also depend on the NetBSD version and/or the processor).
(In reply to comment #113) > It is available when storing a result to memory. Yes, but this requires quite a complicated workaround (solution (4) in my comment #109). So you could say that the IEEE754 double precision type is available even on a processor without any FPU because this can be emulated using integers. Moreover, if we assess things pedantically, the workaround (4) still doesn't fully obey the IEEE single/double precision type(s), because there remains the problem of double rounding of denormals. > The IEEE754-1985 allows this. Section 4.3: "Normally, a result is rounded to > the precision of its destination. However, some systems deliver results only to > double or extended destinations. On such a system the user, which may be a > high-level language compiler, shall be able to specify that a result be rounded > instead to single precision, though it may be stored in the double or extended > format with its wider exponent range. [...]" > [...] > AFAIK, the IEEE754-1985 standard was designed from the x87 > implementation, so it would have been very surprising that x87 didn't conform > to IEEE754-1985. So it seems I was wrong but the IEEE754-1985 standard is also quite "wrong". > > Do you mean that on Windows, long double has (by default) no more precision > > than double? I don't think so (it's confirmed by my experience). > I don't remember my original reference, but here's a new one: > http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa289157(vs.71).aspx > In fact, this depends on the architecture. I quote: "x86. Intermediate > expressions are computed at the default 53-bit precision with an extended range > [...]" I quote, too: "Applies To Microsoft® Visual C++®"
That ® should be (R).
(In reply to comment #114) > Yes, but this requires quite a complicated workaround (solution (4) in my > comment #109). The problem is on the compiler side, which could store every result of a cast or an assignment to memory (this is inefficient, but that's what you get with the x87, and the ISO C language could be blamed too for *requiring* something like that instead of being more flexible). > So you could say that the IEEE754 double precision type is available even on > a processor without any FPU because this can be emulated using integers. Yes, but a conforming implementation would be the processor + a library, not just the processor with its instruction set. > Moreover, if we assess things pedantically, the workaround (4) still doesn't > fully obey the IEEE single/double precision type(s), because there remains the > problem of double rounding of denormals. As I said, in this particular case (underflow/overflow), double rounding is allowed by the IEEE standard. It may not be allowed by some languages (e.g. XPath, and Java in some mode) for good or bad reasons, but this is another problem. > I quote, too: > "Applies To > Microsoft® Visual C++®" Now I assume that it follows the MS-Windows API (though nothing is certain with Microsoft). And the other compilers under MS-Windows could (or should) do the same thing.
(In reply to comment #116) > > Yes, but this requires quite a complicated workaround (solution (4) in my > > comment #109). > > The problem is on the compiler side, which could store every result of a cast > or an assignment to memory (this is inefficient, but that's what you get with > the x87, and the ISO C language could be blamed too for *requiring* something > like that instead of being more flexible). > > > So you could say that the IEEE754 double precision type is available even on > > a processor without any FPU because this can be emulated using integers. > > Yes, but a conforming implementation would be the processor + a library, not > just the processor with its instruction set. > > > Moreover, if we assess things pedantically, the workaround (4) still doesn't > > fully obey the IEEE single/double precision type(s), because there remains the > > problem of double rounding of denormals. > > As I said, in this particular case (underflow/overflow), double rounding is > allowed by the IEEE standard. It may not be allowed by some languages (e.g. > XPath, and Java in some mode) for good or bad reasons, but this is another > problem. OK, thanks for explanation. I think now it's clear. > > I quote, too: > > "Applies To > > Microsoft® Visual C++®" > > Now I assume that it follows the MS-Windows API (though nothing is certain with > Microsoft). And the other compilers under MS-Windows could (or should) do the > same thing. By a lucky hit, I have found this in the GCC documentation: " -mpc32 -mpc64 -mpc80 Set 80387 floating-point precision to 32, 64 or 80 bits. When '-mpc32' is specified, the significands of results of floating-point operations are rounded to 24 bits (single precision); '-mpc64' rounds the the significands of results of floatingpoint operations to 53 bits (double precision) and '-mpc80' rounds the significands of results of floating-point operations to 64 bits (extended double precision), which is the default. When this option is used, floating-point operations in higher precisions are not available to the programmer without setting the FPU control word explicitly. [...]" So GCC sets extended precision by default. And it's easy to change it.
(In reply to comment #117) > By a lucky hit, I have found this in the GCC documentation: > " > -mpc32 > -mpc64 > -mpc80 OK, this is new in gcc 4.3. I haven't tried, but if gcc just changes the precision without changing the values of <float.h> macros to make them correct, this is just a workaround (better than nothing, though). Also, this is a problem for library code if it requires to have double precision instead of extended precision, as these options won't probably be taken into account at that point. (Unfortunately it's probably too late to have a clean ABI.)
Another example related with fp on x87? EXPECTED RESULT: 0 (with EPS accuracy) 0 (with EPS accuracy) 0 (with EPS accuracy) 0 (with EPS accuracy) REAL RESULT: 5.313991e+33 5.313991e+33 0.000000e+00 0.000000e+00 CODE #include <stdio.h> int main( void ) { /* register */ double d1 = 1e50; /* register */ double d2 = -2.7438011834107752e+51; /* register */ double s = 0.036445789368634796; /* register */ double d3 = -d1/s; /* register */ double d4 = s*d2; /* register */ double d5 = s*d3; printf( "%e\n", d1 + s*d2); printf( "%e\n", d1 + s*d3); printf( "%e\n", d1 + d4); printf( "%e\n", d1 + d5); return 0; }
(In reply to comment #119) > REAL RESULT: > 5.313991e+33 > 5.313991e+33 > 0.000000e+00 > 0.000000e+00 Only without optimizations. But since the ISO C standard allows expressions to be evaluated in a higher precision, there's no bug here (unless you show a contradiction with the value of FLT_EVAL_METHOD, but the FP_CONTRACT pragma should also be set to OFF -- though this currently has no effect on gcc).
Thank you Vincent. I fact after commenting I realized that this is a plain numerical error on the last digit of double in multiplication. I think that my comment was rather irrelevant and I am the more ashamed the more I cannot remove it from bugzilla :)
*** Bug 37390 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Subject: Bug 323 Author: jsm28 Date: Tue Nov 4 13:24:30 2008 New Revision: 141578 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=141578 Log: PR rtl-optimization/323 * c-common.c (convert_and_check, c_common_truthvalue_conversion): Handle EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR. * c-common.def (EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR): New. * c-cppbuiltin.c (builtin_define_float_constants): Define constants with enough digits for long double. * c-lex.c (interpret_float): Interpret constant with excess precision where appropriate. * c-opts.c (c_common_post_options): Set flag_excess_precision_cmdline. * c-parser.c (c_parser_conditional_expression): Handle excess precision in condition. * c-typeck.c (c_fully_fold): Handle EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR. (c_fully_fold_internal): Disallow EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR. (convert_arguments): Handle arguments with excess precision. (build_unary_op): Move excess precision outside operation. (build_conditional_expr): Likewise. (build_compound_expr): Likewise. (build_c_cast): Do cast on operand of EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR. (build_modify_expr): Handle excess precision in RHS. (convert_for_assignment): Handle excess precision in converted value. (digest_init, output_init_element, process_init_element): Handle excess precision in initializer. (c_finish_return): Handle excess precision in return value. (build_binary_op): Handle excess precision in operands and add excess precision as needed for operation. * common.opt (-fexcess-precision=): New option. * config/i386/i386.h (X87_ENABLE_ARITH, X87_ENABLE_FLOAT): New. * config/i386/i386.md (float<SSEMODEI24:mode><X87MODEF:mode>2): For standard excess precision, output explicit conversion to and truncation from XFmode. (*float<SSEMODEI24:mode><X87MODEF:mode>2_1, *float<SSEMODEI24:mode><X87MODEF:mode>2_i387_with_temp, *float<SSEMODEI24:mode><X87MODEF:mode>2_i387, two unnamed define_splits, floatdi<X87MODEF:mode>2_i387_with_xmm, two unnamed define_splits, *floatunssi<mode>2_1, two unnamed define_splits, floatunssi<mode>2, add<mode>3, sub<mode>3, mul<mode>3, divdf3, divsf3, *fop_<mode>_comm_i387, *fop_<mode>_1_i387, *fop_<MODEF:mode>_2_i387, *fop_<MODEF:mode>_3_i387, *fop_df_4_i387, *fop_df_5_i387, *fop_df_6_i387, two unnamed define_splits, sqrt<mode>2): Disable where appropriate for standard excess precision. * convert.c (convert_to_real): Do not shorten arithmetic to type for which excess precision would be used. * doc/invoke.texi (-fexcess-precision=): Document option. (-mfpmath=): Correct index entry. * flags.h (enum excess_precision, flag_excess_precision_cmdline, flag_excess_precision): New. * langhooks.c (lhd_post_options): Set flag_excess_precision_cmdline. * opts.c (common_handle_option): Handle -fexcess-precision=. * toplev.c (flag_excess_precision_cmdline, flag_excess_precision, init_excess_precision): New. (lang_dependent_init_target): Call init_excess_precision. * tree.c (excess_precision_type): New. * tree.h (excess_precision_type): Declare. ada: * gcc-interface/misc.c (gnat_post_options): Set flag_excess_precision_cmdline. fortran: * options.c (gfc_post_options): Set flag_excess_precision_cmdline. java: * lang.c (java_post_options): Set flag_excess_precision_cmdline. testsuite: * gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-1.c, gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-2.c, gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-3.c, gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-4.c, gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-5.c, gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-6.c: New tests. Added: branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/ada/ChangeLog.c45 branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog.c45 branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/java/ChangeLog.c45 branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-1.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-2.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-3.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-4.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-5.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-6.c Modified: branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/ChangeLog.c45 branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/misc.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/c-common.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/c-common.def branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/c-cppbuiltin.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/c-lex.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/c-opts.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/c-parser.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/c-typeck.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/common.opt branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/config/i386/i386.h branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/config/i386/i386.md branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/convert.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/doc/invoke.texi branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/flags.h branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/fortran/options.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/java/lang.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/langhooks.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/opts.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog.c45 branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/toplev.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/tree.c branches/c-4_5-branch/gcc/tree.h
Vincent Lefèvre is right: the issue is quite subtle. (I should mention that Vincent is an expert in computer arithmetics, which I'm not.) As he rightly points, conformance to IEEE-754 should be evaluated for a whole software/hardware system - it is possible to have a IEEE-754 system entirely implemented in software. It seems like the C99 standard prohibits double rounding, and prohibits having values depend on the vagaries of register spilling. Except that this prohibition is explicit only in non-normative sections. "Language lawyers" have sent me justifications that this prohibition is implied by various normative prescriptions of the standard. I think that in any case we should not spend too much energy trying to assign blame (who conforms to the standard) but rather try to find solutions. The short answer is that no compiler, be it gcc, will be modified so that complex sequences of operations are used for floating-point operations in lieu of directly using x87 instructions! At least for two reasons: * x87 is now fading away (its use is deprecated on x86-64, it's not used by default on Intel Macintosh...) * Most people don't want to pay the performance hit. In addition, I think there are more urgent things to fix in gcc's floating-point system, such as support for #pragma STDC FENV ACCESS Now for some additional facts: * It is possible to force the x87 to use reduced precision for the mantissa (with inline asm or even now with gcc options). * This setting does not affect the range of exponents. so you can still have surprises if a very tiny nonzero value is kept in a register then is rounded to zero when spilled to memory. * In some rare cases, you can have "double rounding on underflow": you get a different result by computing on SSE in double precision mode on the one hand, and by computing on x87 in "double precision" then writing to a double variable in memory.
(In reply to comment #124) > It seems like the C99 standard prohibits double rounding, only if Annex F is claimed to be supported (note: Annex F is not just IEEE 754, it also contains specific bindings). IEEE 754 doesn't prohibit double rounding either (this depends on the bindings), but with C99 + Annex F, double rounding is prohibited. Now, bug 323 is not about double rounding specifically. There are two potential problems: 1. A "double" variable (or result of a cast) contains a "long double" value (not exactly representable in a "double"). This is prohibited by C99 (5.1.2.3#12, 6.3.1.5#2 and 6.3.1.8#2[52]). This problem seems to be fixed by Joseph Myers' patch mentioned in comment #123 (but I haven't tried). 2. Computations on "double" expressions are carried out in extended precision. This is allowed by C99 (except for casts and assignments), e.g. when FLT_EVAL_METHOD=2. But if the implementation (i.e. here compiler + library + ...) claims to support Annex F, then this is prohibited. This point is rather tricky because the compiler (GCC) and library (e.g. GNU libc) settings must be consistent, so their developers need to talk with each other. FYI, I reported the following bug concerning glibc: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=6981 because it sets __STDC_IEC_559__ to 1 unconditionally. > The short answer is that no compiler, be it gcc, will be modified so that > complex sequences of operations are used for floating-point operations in lieu > of directly using x87 instructions! At least for two reasons: > * x87 is now fading away (its use is deprecated on x86-64, it's not used by > default on Intel Macintosh...) > * Most people don't want to pay the performance hit. That's why in Joseph's patch, it's just an option (disabled by default, but enabled by -std=c99 because one should assume that if a user wants C99, then he really wants it, and if he is able to add an option, then he is also able to add another one if he wants to disable this fix in case he knows it is useless for his application -- this is also true for -ffast-math). GCC already supports SSE, but this patch is for processors that don't. Also the performance hit depends very much on the application. Performance hit is reduced in applications that do not use intensive FP or mostly interactive applications. > In addition, I think there are more urgent things to fix in gcc's > floating-point system, such as support for #pragma STDC FENV ACCESS FYI, this is bug 34678. And I submitted bug 37845 concerning the FP_CONTRACT pragma. > * It is possible to force the x87 to use reduced precision for the mantissa > (with inline asm or even now with gcc options). Unfortunately, this means that "long double" wouldn't behave as expected, and the behavior is not controllable enough (e.g. due to libraries, plugins...). Such a change should have been system-wide. Now, this is needed in software where double rounding is prohibited (e.g. XSLT processor).
Subject: Bug 323 Author: jsm28 Date: Mon Mar 30 01:50:44 2009 New Revision: 145272 URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=145272 Log: PR rtl-optimization/323 * c-common.c (c_fully_fold, convert_and_check, c_common_truthvalue_conversion): Handle EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR. (c_fully_fold_internal): Disallow EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR. * c-common.def (EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR): New. * c-cppbuiltin.c (builtin_define_float_constants): Define constants with enough digits for long double. * c-lex.c (interpret_float): Interpret constant with excess precision where appropriate. * c-opts.c (c_common_post_options): Set flag_excess_precision_cmdline. Give an error for -fexcess-precision=standard for C++ for processors where the option is significant. * c-parser.c (c_parser_conditional_expression): Handle excess precision in condition. * c-typeck.c (convert_arguments): Handle arguments with excess precision. (build_unary_op): Move excess precision outside operation. (build_conditional_expr): Likewise. (build_compound_expr): Likewise. (build_c_cast): Do cast on operand of EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR. (build_modify_expr): Handle excess precision in RHS. (convert_for_assignment): Handle excess precision in converted value. (digest_init, output_init_element, process_init_element): Handle excess precision in initializer. (c_finish_return): Handle excess precision in return value. (build_binary_op): Handle excess precision in operands and add excess precision as needed for operation. * common.opt (-fexcess-precision=): New option. * config/i386/i386.h (X87_ENABLE_ARITH, X87_ENABLE_FLOAT): New. * config/i386/i386.md (float<SSEMODEI24:mode><X87MODEF:mode>2): For standard excess precision, output explicit conversion to and truncation from XFmode. (*float<SSEMODEI24:mode><X87MODEF:mode>2_1, *float<SSEMODEI24:mode><X87MODEF:mode>2_i387_with_temp, *float<SSEMODEI24:mode><X87MODEF:mode>2_i387, two unnamed define_splits, floatdi<X87MODEF:mode>2_i387_with_xmm, two unnamed define_splits, *floatunssi<mode>2_1, two unnamed define_splits, floatunssi<mode>2, add<mode>3, sub<mode>3, mul<mode>3, divdf3, divsf3, *fop_<mode>_comm_i387, *fop_<mode>_1_i387, *fop_<MODEF:mode>_2_i387, *fop_<MODEF:mode>_3_i387, *fop_df_4_i387, *fop_df_5_i387, *fop_df_6_i387, two unnamed define_splits, sqrt<mode>2): Disable where appropriate for standard excess precision. * convert.c (convert_to_real): Do not shorten arithmetic to type for which excess precision would be used. * defaults.h (TARGET_FLT_EVAL_METHOD_NON_DEFAULT): Define. * doc/invoke.texi (-fexcess-precision=): Document option. (-mfpmath=): Correct index entry. * flags.h (enum excess_precision, flag_excess_precision_cmdline, flag_excess_precision): New. * langhooks.c (lhd_post_options): Set flag_excess_precision_cmdline. * opts.c (common_handle_option): Handle -fexcess-precision=. * toplev.c (flag_excess_precision_cmdline, flag_excess_precision, init_excess_precision): New. (lang_dependent_init_target): Call init_excess_precision. * tree.c (excess_precision_type): New. * tree.h (excess_precision_type): Declare. ada: * gcc-interface/misc.c (gnat_post_options): Set flag_excess_precision_cmdline. Give an error for -fexcess-precision=standard for processors where the option is significant. fortran: * options.c (gfc_post_options): Set flag_excess_precision_cmdline. Give an error for -fexcess-precision=standard for processors where the option is significant. java: * lang.c (java_post_options): Set flag_excess_precision_cmdline. Give an error for -fexcess-precision=standard for processors where the option is significant. testsuite: * gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-1.c, gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-2.c, gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-3.c, gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-4.c, gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-5.c, gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-6.c: New tests. Added: trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-1.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-2.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-3.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-4.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-5.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-6.c Modified: trunk/gcc/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/ada/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/ada/gcc-interface/misc.c trunk/gcc/c-common.c trunk/gcc/c-common.def trunk/gcc/c-cppbuiltin.c trunk/gcc/c-lex.c trunk/gcc/c-opts.c trunk/gcc/c-parser.c trunk/gcc/c-typeck.c trunk/gcc/common.opt trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.h trunk/gcc/config/i386/i386.md trunk/gcc/convert.c trunk/gcc/defaults.h trunk/gcc/doc/invoke.texi trunk/gcc/flags.h trunk/gcc/fortran/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/fortran/options.c trunk/gcc/java/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/java/lang.c trunk/gcc/langhooks.c trunk/gcc/opts.c trunk/gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog trunk/gcc/toplev.c trunk/gcc/tree.c trunk/gcc/tree.h
Fixed for C (and ObjC) for 4.5 with the new -fexcess-precision=standard support. The issue remains for other languages (and maybe for some m68k processors); I quote from my original message <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00105.html>: It would be possible to implement the option for non-C languages, to provide whatever predictable semantics are appropriate for those languages (whether or not described in their standards). Note that bug 323 was originally reported with a C++ testcase. If implemented for all languages, the option might supersede -ffloat-store. Right now, -ffloat-store checks are scattered about the optimizers and it seems unlikely that -ffloat-store really implements any form of predictable semantics now; such semantic effect as it was intended to have could be better represented as an alias for a -fexcess-precision=standard option supported for all languages. It would probably be most appropriate not to close bug 323 without having some form of predictable semantics available for each language. and: I have not changed the m68k back end in this patch. Thus the option may not be fully effective for the affected m68k processors (classic m68k with 68881, before 68040, only, not ColdFire, not 68040 or later). If anyone wishes to make it fully effective for such processors they should copy the testcases to gcc.target/m68k/ and go through m68k insn patterns appropriately adjusting them.
*** Bug 40186 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I am a bit wondering if this bug is also for the case (a < b) && (b < a) == true. Is it? Because if so, this becomes way more serious, as for example std::set<double> is broken then (and depending on the STL implementation, it will throw assertions then). If not, I guess my bug #40186 is not a duplicate of this bug.
(In reply to comment #129) > I am a bit wondering if this bug is also for the case (a < b) && (b < a) == > true. Is it? i guess so, see: #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> #define axiom_order(a,b) !(a < b && b < a) #define axiom_eq(a) a == a #define third ((double)atoi("1")/atoi("3")) int main(void) { if (axiom_order(third, third)) puts("ok"); else puts("error"); if (axiom_eq(third)) puts("ok"); else puts("error"); return 0; } here this prints error error with gcc 4.2 and -S shows that this is long double vs double precision problem > Because if so, this becomes way more serious, as for example std::set<double> > is broken then (and depending on the STL implementation, it will throw > assertions then). in C99 (+TC1,TC2,TC3) different precision is not allowed 5.1.2.3 p12: ... In particular, casts and assignments are required to perform their specified conversion 5.2.4.2.2 p8: Except for assignment and cast (which remove all extra range and precision), the values 8 of operations with floating operands and values subject to the usual arithmetic conversions and of floating constants are evaluated to a format whose range and precision may be greater than required by the type. i'm not sure about c++ though
(In reply to comment #130) > #define axiom_order(a,b) !(a < b && b < a) > #define axiom_eq(a) a == a > #define third ((double)atoi("1")/atoi("3")) [...] > in C99 (+TC1,TC2,TC3) different precision is not allowed It is allowed, except for... > 5.1.2.3 p12: > ... In particular, casts and assignments are required to perform their > specified conversion But a division is not a cast, nor an assignment. > 5.2.4.2.2 p8: > Except for assignment and cast (which remove all extra range and precision), > the values 8 of operations with floating operands and values subject to the > usual arithmetic conversions and of floating constants are evaluated to a > format whose range and precision may be greater than required by the type. A greater precision is OK for division, in particular.
So that means that this C++ example could crash under certain circumstances (depending on how far the compiler is optimising here)? #include <set> #define third ((double)atoi("1")/atoi("3")) int main() { std::set<double> m; m.insert(third); m.insert(third); return (m.find(third) != m.end()) ? 0 : 1; } Because this example only works if it is guaranteed that !(third < third && third > third), otherwise it would abort.
*** Bug 41195 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 41867 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 44198 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 45175 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 45691 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: gtalbot@locuspharma.com<mailto:gtalbot@locuspharma.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com gtalbot@locuspharma.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;gtalbot@locuspharma.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:43:50 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 45BCD7040AD for <gtalbot@locuspharma.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:43:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 19955 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 18:43:48 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:43:46 +0000 From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <gtalbot@locuspharma.com> Subject: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Component In-Reply-To: <bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:43:45 +0000 Message-ID: <b0b345b2-0cf0-48dd-a9a1-5d99454fc35e@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
*** Bug 45899 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: gtalbot@locuspharma.com<mailto:gtalbot@locuspharma.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com gtalbot@locuspharma.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;gtalbot@locuspharma.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:47:50 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 85C9D7040AD for <gtalbot@locuspharma.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:47:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 21129 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 18:47:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:47:46 +0000 From: postmaster at ansarisbio dot com <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <gtalbot@locuspharma.com> Subject: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: postmaster at ansarisbio dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: In-Reply-To: <bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:47:44 +0000 Message-ID: <b961d911-beb7-4994-b60c-903ac28428ad@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net<mailto:rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: exchad.jpmchase.net rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ## Original message headers: Received: from si4.svr.bankone.net (155.180.56.116) by HUBR001.exchad.jpmchase.net (169.70.190.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.247.2; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:50:41 -0400 Received: from jpmchase.com (img3.dmz.bankone.net [155.180.118.168]) by si4.svr.bankone.net (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.3.3mp) with ESMTP id o95IodgG004867 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:50:39 -0400 Message-ID: <201010051850.o95IodgG004867@si4.svr.bankone.net> Received: from ([209.132.180.131]) by img3.jpmchase.com with SMTP id 56DC7G1.412959853; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 14:50:34 -0400 Received: (qmail 23322 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 18:50:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:50:30 +0000 From: postmaster at ansarisbio dot com <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com> Subject: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: postmaster at ansarisbio dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: In-Reply-To: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:50:29 +0000 X-esp: ESP<41>= SHA:<0> SHA_FLAGS:<0> UHA:<12> ISC:<0> BAYES:<0> SenderID:<0> DKIM:<0> TS:<-11> SIG:<dWI3WNz1AUp2bi9KWTKK1tqzR8eU3QoNrmrZSsjfNXKqd1Cx_D5coRTLwcVf Gg5wOSDXLjxP5wfWwCm49yMH1OaGzL0bILBmaA0YmFn3AkNJOEWZwb0ekzwW CdY8KsY7IxEkTy6vTL2JCneFFhQJDUlanas0NLpZdKWZRF868melvCcN2rP9 l7hRc8kJV2hwQvh2ieef9fTWrAIeJDcOJitp6fzLa35bUvj4A> DSC:<40> (obscure_url:<40>) TRU_spam1: <0> TRU_scam_spam: <0> TRU_ru_spamsubj: <0> TRU_profanity_spam: <0> TRU_medical_spam: <0> TRU_urllinks: <0> URL Real-Time Signatures: <0> TRU_html_image_spam: <0> TRU_freehosting: <0> TRU_stock_spam: <0> TRU_watch_spam: <0> TRU_embedded_image_spam: <0> TRU_lotto_spam: <0> TRU_legal_spam: <0> TRU_adult_spam: <0> TRU_money_spam: <0> TRU_spam2: <0> TRU_playsites: <0> TRU_misc_spam: <0> TRU_marketing_spam: <0> TRU_phish_spam: <0> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: gtalbot@locuspharma.com<mailto:gtalbot@locuspharma.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com gtalbot@locuspharma.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;gtalbot@locuspharma.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:52:32 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id AAEC97040AD for <gtalbot@locuspharma.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:52:32 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 24400 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 18:52:31 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:52:29 +0000 From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <gtalbot@locuspharma.com> Subject: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC In-Reply-To: <bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:52:28 +0000 Message-ID: <3a193bdc-ca0f-4171-85e4-390f62a4f055@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net<mailto:rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: exchad.jpmchase.net rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ## Original message headers: Received: from si4.svr.bankone.net (155.180.56.116) by HUBCR101.exchad.jpmchase.net (169.70.190.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.247.2; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:53:42 -0400 Received: from jpmchase.com (img3.dmz.bankone.net [155.180.118.168]) by si4.svr.bankone.net (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.3.3mp) with ESMTP id o95IrdSr012724 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:53:40 -0400 Message-ID: <201010051853.o95IrdSr012724@si4.svr.bankone.net> Received: from ([209.132.180.131]) by img3.jpmchase.com with SMTP id 56DC7G1.412961378; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 14:53:34 -0400 Received: (qmail 24625 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 18:53:33 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:53:31 +0000 From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com> Subject: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC In-Reply-To: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:53:30 +0000 X-esp: ESP<1>= SHA:<0> SHA_FLAGS:<0> UHA:<12> ISC:<0> BAYES:<0> SenderID:<0> DKIM:<0> TS:<-11> SIG:<dWI3WNz1AAY-gyBnApUZNV4t2dc9_3DItJwndCW-mBRzAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACneFFhQJDUlanas0NLpZdKWZRF868melvCcN2rP9 l7hRc8kJV2hwQvh2mIuf9fTWkAV-qnUMUUS1le7Emceh_2oiA> DSC:<0> TRU_spam1: <0> TRU_scam_spam: <0> TRU_ru_spamsubj: <0> TRU_profanity_spam: <0> TRU_medical_spam: <0> TRU_urllinks: <0> URL Real-Time Signatures: <0> TRU_html_image_spam: <0> TRU_freehosting: <0> TRU_stock_spam: <0> TRU_watch_spam: <0> TRU_embedded_image_spam: <0> TRU_lotto_spam: <0> TRU_legal_spam: <0> TRU_adult_spam: <0> TRU_money_spam: <0> TRU_spam2: <0> TRU_playsites: <0> TRU_misc_spam: <0> TRU_marketing_spam: <0> TRU_phish_spam: <0> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: gtalbot@locuspharma.com<mailto:gtalbot@locuspharma.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com gtalbot@locuspharma.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;gtalbot@locuspharma.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:58:08 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 23E497040AD for <gtalbot@locuspharma.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 14:58:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 27985 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 18:58:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 18:58:04 +0000 From: postmaster at ansarisbio dot com <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <gtalbot@locuspharma.com> Subject: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: postmaster at ansarisbio dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: In-Reply-To: <bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:58:03 +0000 Message-ID: <a0b5d31c-4b60-498a-88c9-f22634cc453c@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:02:08 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 15FC87040AD for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:02:02 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 29942 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 19:02:01 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:01:57 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ b961d911-beb7-4994-b60c-903ac28428ad@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:48:14 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <a7b850cb-0eb8-4e02-8463-750a407c8d70@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: gtalbot@locuspharma.com<mailto:gtalbot@locuspharma.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com gtalbot@locuspharma.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;gtalbot@locuspharma.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:03:44 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 725C97040AD for <gtalbot@locuspharma.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:03:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 30353 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 19:03:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:03:41 +0000 From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <gtalbot@locuspharma.com> Subject: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC In-Reply-To: <bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:03:40 +0000 Message-ID: <3b6a815e-0487-4aa0-9bfc-b4ed53f2aa6c@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net<mailto:rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: exchad.jpmchase.net rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ## Original message headers: Received: from sg1.svr.us.jpmchase.net (155.180.248.9) by HUBCS203.exchad.jpmchase.net (169.69.182.242) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.247.2; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:07:29 -0400 Received: from jpmchase.com (imi2.dmz.bankone.net [155.180.102.148]) by sg1.svr.us.jpmchase.net (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.3.3mp) with ESMTP id o95J7S5k002137 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:07:29 -0400 Message-ID: <201010051907.o95J7S5k002137@sg1.svr.us.jpmchase.net> Received: from ([209.132.180.131]) by imi2.jpmchase.com with SMTP id 1X4JRF1.416750853; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:07:22 -0400 Received: (qmail 32082 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 19:07:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID,TW_JP X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID,TW_JP X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:07:19 +0000 From: postmaster at jpmchase dot com <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com> Subject: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: postmaster at jpmchase dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: In-Reply-To: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:07:18 +0000 X-esp: ESP<48>= SHA:<0> SHA_FLAGS:<0> UHA:<12> ISC:<0> BAYES:<0> SenderID:<0> DKIM:<0> TS:<-16> SIG:<dWI3WNz1AiAzRCUJeow6lRBz1QZ15Zarn1I6-gln1mzFl24uAwAeWir8EFrk 5x8UiBf0wMVerfhRYPim06MTqubS6KE842Xyee3WDH0rZwk66Bwq0IR97QC9 iuNWsGDk8inrtfa5HXuiCneFFhQJDUlanas0NLpZdKWZRF868melvCcN2rP9 l7hRc8kJV2hwQv9bFkeMsDuXkARnHKUohxhaHgdOAqb_zdSWA> DSC:<40> (obscure_url:<40>) TRU_adult_spam: <0> TRU_playsites: <0> TRU_spam1: <0> TRU_stock_spam: <0> TRU_embedded_image_spam: <0> TRU_html_image_spam: <0> TRU_misc_spam: <0> TRU_freehosting: <0> TRU_urllinks: <0> TRU_watch_spam: <0> TRU_marketing_spam: <0> TRU_profanity_spam: <0> TRU_ru_spamsubj: <0> TRU_phish_spam: <0> TRU_medical_spam: <0> TRU_lotto_spam: <12> TRU_money_spam: <0> TRU_spam2: <0> TRU_scam_spam: <0> TRU_legal_spam: <0> URL Real-Time Signatures: <0> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:15:44 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 0F8C8704074 for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:15:44 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 2487 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 19:15:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:15:41 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ 3a193bdc-ca0f-4171-85e4-390f62a4f055@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:52:48 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <b6e2898c-afd9-4630-892b-01962fd090d3@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:26:51 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 33899704074 for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:26:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 9199 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 19:26:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:26:47 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ a0b5d31c-4b60-498a-88c9-f22634cc453c@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:58:25 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <0755e542-6fbe-4027-bdc4-69ffafba32a6@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net<mailto:rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: exchad.jpmchase.net rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ## Original message headers: Received: from se2.svr.bankone.net (155.180.234.120) by HUBCS201.exchad.jpmchase.net (169.69.182.78) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.247.2; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:28:45 -0400 Received: from jpmchase.com (img1.dmz.bankone.net [155.180.118.167]) by se2.svr.bankone.net (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.3.3mp) with ESMTP id o95JSiO8002571 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:28:45 -0400 Message-ID: <201010051928.o95JSiO8002571@se2.svr.bankone.net> Received: from ([209.132.180.131]) by img1.jpmchase.com with SMTP id 45DC7G1.392889406; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:28:39 -0400 Received: (qmail 9801 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 19:28:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:28:36 +0000 From: postmaster at ansarisbio dot com <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com> Subject: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: postmaster at ansarisbio dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: In-Reply-To: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:28:35 +0000 X-esp: ESP<41>= SHA:<0> SHA_FLAGS:<0> UHA:<12> ISC:<0> BAYES:<0> SenderID:<0> DKIM:<0> TS:<-11> SIG:<dWI3WNz1AUpfbi9KWTKK1tZ8EFrk5x8UiYkqFShGRMAc6Bwq0IR97QC9iuNW sGDk8PZnv1nfWF313K7nQv7D3SCstw99ZfSPk7CvVFjaVbf5LhqOCnU7rL8X HJxDzXodvEW9AAKhCl8ACneFFhQJDUlanas0NLpZdKWZRF868melvCcN2rP9 l7hRc8kJV2hwQyxSi7gLMnYzrAsPCqVt5WWgmrB1akIjCY7KA> DSC:<40> (obscure_url:<40>) TRU_spam1: <0> TRU_scam_spam: <0> TRU_ru_spamsubj: <0> TRU_profanity_spam: <0> TRU_medical_spam: <0> TRU_urllinks: <0> URL Real-Time Signatures: <0> TRU_html_image_spam: <0> TRU_freehosting: <0> TRU_stock_spam: <0> TRU_watch_spam: <0> TRU_embedded_image_spam: <0> TRU_lotto_spam: <0> TRU_legal_spam: <0> TRU_adult_spam: <0> TRU_money_spam: <0> TRU_spam2: <0> TRU_playsites: <0> TRU_misc_spam: <0> TRU_marketing_spam: <0> TRU_phish_spam: <0> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net<mailto:rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: exchad.jpmchase.net rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ## Original message headers: Received: from sg1.svr.us.jpmchase.net (155.180.248.9) by HUBR001.exchad.jpmchase.net (169.70.190.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.247.2; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:29:50 -0400 Received: from jpmchase.com (imi5.dmz.bankone.net [155.180.102.188]) by sg1.svr.us.jpmchase.net (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.3.3mp) with ESMTP id o95JTnn1009320 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:29:49 -0400 Message-ID: <201010051929.o95JTnn1009320@sg1.svr.us.jpmchase.net> Received: from ([209.132.180.131]) by imi5.jpmchase.com with SMTP id FY84LF1.438923142; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:29:44 -0400 Received: (qmail 10106 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 19:29:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:29:42 +0000 From: postmaster at ansarisbio dot com <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com> Subject: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: postmaster at ansarisbio dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: In-Reply-To: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:29:41 +0000 X-esp: ESP<41>= SHA:<0> SHA_FLAGS:<0> UHA:<12> ISC:<0> BAYES:<0> SenderID:<0> DKIM:<0> TS:<-11> SIG:<dWI3WNz1AUOwQIoB4TIDYa2z1QZ15ZarnYkqFShGRMAczRMsqv38zZKIOifn GVYxYh2ik2vQzAXNwCm49yMH1OaGzL0bILBma3qP1WBxXRz3uOmEULYvm6bj nne6HYJEc2HUPFXvnHaTCneFFhQJDUlanas0NLpZdKWZRF868melvCcN2rP9 l7hRc8kJV2hwQvMBn_uUqlSKrAswetRltFMYEZCdi52UyK-4A> DSC:<40> (obscure_url:<40>) TRU_adult_spam: <0> TRU_playsites: <0> TRU_spam1: <0> TRU_stock_spam: <0> TRU_embedded_image_spam: <0> TRU_html_image_spam: <0> TRU_misc_spam: <0> TRU_freehosting: <0> TRU_urllinks: <0> TRU_watch_spam: <0> TRU_marketing_spam: <0> TRU_profanity_spam: <0> TRU_ru_spamsubj: <0> TRU_phish_spam: <0> TRU_medical_spam: <0> TRU_lotto_spam: <0> TRU_money_spam: <0> TRU_spam2: <0> TRU_scam_spam: <0> TRU_legal_spam: <0> URL Real-Time Signatures: <0> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net<mailto:rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: exchad.jpmchase.net rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ## Original message headers: Received: from se2.svr.bankone.net (155.180.234.120) by HUBR001.exchad.jpmchase.net (169.70.190.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.247.2; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:35:59 -0400 Received: from jpmchase.com (img1.dmz.bankone.net [155.180.118.167]) by se2.svr.bankone.net (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.3.3mp) with ESMTP id o95JZvJi025183 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:35:58 -0400 Message-ID: <201010051935.o95JZvJi025183@se2.svr.bankone.net> Received: from ([209.132.180.131]) by img1.jpmchase.com with SMTP id 45DC7G1.392893766; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:35:53 -0400 Received: (qmail 26537 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 19:35:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID,TW_BF X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID,TW_BF X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:35:49 +0000 From: postmaster at ansarisbio dot com <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com> Subject: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: postmaster at ansarisbio dot com X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: In-Reply-To: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:35:48 +0000 X-esp: ESP<36>= SHA:<0> SHA_FLAGS:<0> UHA:<12> ISC:<0> BAYES:<0> SenderID:<0> DKIM:<0> TS:<-16> SIG:<dWI3WNz1AUp-bi9KWTKK1tqzR8eU3QoNrSDXLjxP5wfWwCm49yMH1OtdnIXj j8JtSinrtfa5HXuiOEWZwb0ekzwWCdY8KsY7I334maAQz1p2PxMbCbYI_v7M 869L7tgYmxGscixLx6dSCneFFhQJDUlanas0NLpZdKWZRF868melvCcN2rP9 l7hRc8kJV2hwQyxSOCgLMnYzrAw0kio3tvWkav9iUe79Qc7zA> DSC:<40> (obscure_url:<40>) TRU_spam1: <0> TRU_scam_spam: <0> TRU_ru_spamsubj: <0> TRU_profanity_spam: <0> TRU_medical_spam: <0> TRU_urllinks: <0> URL Real-Time Signatures: <0> TRU_html_image_spam: <0> TRU_freehosting: <0> TRU_stock_spam: <0> TRU_watch_spam: <0> TRU_embedded_image_spam: <0> TRU_lotto_spam: <0> TRU_legal_spam: <0> TRU_adult_spam: <0> TRU_money_spam: <0> TRU_spam2: <0> TRU_playsites: <0> TRU_misc_spam: <0> TRU_marketing_spam: <0> TRU_phish_spam: <0> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:38:22 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 377C7704074 for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:38:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 15851 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 19:38:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:38:19 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ b961d911-beb7-4994-b60c-903ac28428ad@exchange.discovery.com a7b850cb-0eb8-4e02-8463-750a407c8d70@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:02:25 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <73da3815-c263-4eec-80b3-4692d8c04376@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net<mailto:rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: exchad.jpmchase.net rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ## Original message headers: Received: from sg3.svr.us.jpmchase.net (155.180.248.7) by HUBR002.exchad.jpmchase.net (169.69.182.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.2.247.2; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:39:30 -0400 Received: from jpmchase.com (ime6.dmz.bankone.net [155.180.110.185]) by sg3.svr.us.jpmchase.net (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.3.3mp) with ESMTP id o95JdTZR023284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:39:30 -0400 Message-ID: <201010051939.o95JdTZR023284@sg3.svr.us.jpmchase.net> Received: from ([209.132.180.131]) by ime6.jpmchase.com with SMTP id G6DC7G1.476932631; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:39:22 -0400 Received: (qmail 27172 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 19:39:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:39:20 +0000 From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com> Subject: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC In-Reply-To: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> References: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:39:18 +0000 X-esp: ESP<41>= SHA:<0> SHA_FLAGS:<0> UHA:<12> ISC:<0> BAYES:<0> SenderID:<0> DKIM:<0> TS:<-11> SIG:<dWI3WNz1AAjh29Sc0DGR4k_GzL0bILBmaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACneFFhQJDUlanas0NLpZdKWZRF868melvCcN2rP9 l7hRc8kJV2hwQPv2gyHiLcJNrA-LboAsb2SPkTZmJUYz6-iAA> DSC:<40> (obscure_url:<40>) TRU_adult_spam: <0> TRU_watch_spam: <0> TRU_stock_spam: <0> TRU_lotto_spam: <0> TRU_html_image_spam: <0> TRU_freehosting: <0> URL Real-Time Signatures: <0> TRU_scam_spam: <0> TRU_misc_spam: <0> TRU_urllinks: <0> TRU_embedded_image_spam: <0> TRU_spam2: <0> TRU_marketing_spam: <0> TRU_profanity_spam: <0> TRU_playsites: <0> TRU_phish_spam: <0> TRU_medical_spam: <0> TRU_money_spam: <0> TRU_spam1: <0> TRU_legal_spam: <0> TRU_ru_spamsubj: <0> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:41:49 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DEE10704074 for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:41:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 2154 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 19:41:49 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:41:46 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ 3b6a815e-0487-4aa0-9bfc-b4ed53f2aa6c@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:04:00 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <75f74881-f01d-417b-99f0-8dfca5c547e4@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:50:54 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 78EA0704074 for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:50:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 8368 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 19:50:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:50:51 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ 3a193bdc-ca0f-4171-85e4-390f62a4f055@exchange.discovery.com b6e2898c-afd9-4630-892b-01962fd090d3@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:16:00 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <33a8d458-5ac8-46a6-a0c7-d9095b1f3906@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:01:12 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3CA317040B8 for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:01:12 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 26332 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 20:01:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:01:08 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ a0b5d31c-4b60-498a-88c9-f22634cc453c@exchange.discovery.com 0755e542-6fbe-4027-bdc4-69ffafba32a6@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:27:08 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <e525d940-3df5-43ef-9012-36bb82ef93d5@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:23:07 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 9AAC7704098 for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:23:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 7851 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 20:23:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:23:03 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ b961d911-beb7-4994-b60c-903ac28428ad@exchange.discovery.com a7b850cb-0eb8-4e02-8463-750a407c8d70@exchange.discovery.com 73da3815-c263-4eec-80b3-4692d8c04376@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:38:41 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <7707959c-627f-42dd-a95a-a9588cc517fd@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Whoever is testing mail: couldn't you have made a phoney bug report to test with, and not used a live one which had me on the CC list? I've gotten about two dozen random mailer-daemon bounces so far because of this and they keep coming. Don't test with real data: test with test data!! On Tue, 5 Oct 2010, postmaster at jpmchase dot com wrote: > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323 > > --- Comment #155 from postmaster at jpmchase dot com 2010-10-05 19:40:16 UTC --- > Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: > > rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net<mailto:rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net> > The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. > Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check > the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following > diagnostic text to your system administrator. > > ________________________________ > Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 > > > > > > > Diagnostic information for administrators: > > Generating server: exchad.jpmchase.net > > rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchasex.jpmchase.net > #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ## > > Original message headers: > > Received: from sg3.svr.us.jpmchase.net (155.180.248.7) by > HUBR002.exchad.jpmchase.net (169.69.182.48) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) > id 8.2.247.2; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:39:30 -0400 > Received: from jpmchase.com (ime6.dmz.bankone.net [155.180.110.185]) by > sg3.svr.us.jpmchase.net (Switch-3.4.3/Switch-3.3.3mp) with ESMTP id > o95JdTZR023284 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 > verify=OK) for <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 15:39:30 > -0400 > Message-ID: <201010051939.o95JdTZR023284@sg3.svr.us.jpmchase.net> > Received: from ([209.132.180.131]) by ime6.jpmchase.com with SMTP id > G6DC7G1.476932631; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 15:39:22 -0400 > Received: (qmail 27172 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 19:39:22 -0000 > X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 > tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID > X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 > tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID > X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org > Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org > (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 19:39:20 +0000 > From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> > To: <rohit.x.tripathi@jpmchase.com> > Subject: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point > results > X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC > X-Bugzilla-Type: changed > X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None > X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc > X-Bugzilla-Component: middle-end > X-Bugzilla-Keywords: wrong-code > X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal > X-Bugzilla-Who: pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org > X-Bugzilla-Status: SUSPENDED > X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 > X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org > X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: --- > X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC > In-Reply-To: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> > References: <bug-323-16346@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> > X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ > Auto-Submitted: auto-generated > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:39:18 +0000 > X-esp: ESP<41>= > SHA:<0> > SHA_FLAGS:<0> > UHA:<12> > ISC:<0> > BAYES:<0> > SenderID:<0> > DKIM:<0> > TS:<-11> > SIG:<dWI3WNz1AAjh29Sc0DGR4k_GzL0bILBmaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA > AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACneFFhQJDUlanas0NLpZdKWZRF868melvCcN2rP9 > l7hRc8kJV2hwQPv2gyHiLcJNrA-LboAsb2SPkTZmJUYz6-iAA> > DSC:<40> (obscure_url:<40>) > TRU_adult_spam: <0> > TRU_watch_spam: <0> > TRU_stock_spam: <0> > TRU_lotto_spam: <0> > TRU_html_image_spam: <0> > TRU_freehosting: <0> > URL Real-Time Signatures: <0> > TRU_scam_spam: <0> > TRU_misc_spam: <0> > TRU_urllinks: <0> > TRU_embedded_image_spam: <0> > TRU_spam2: <0> > TRU_marketing_spam: <0> > TRU_profanity_spam: <0> > TRU_playsites: <0> > TRU_phish_spam: <0> > TRU_medical_spam: <0> > TRU_money_spam: <0> > TRU_spam1: <0> > TRU_legal_spam: <0> > TRU_ru_spamsubj: <0> > Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org > > -- > Configure bugmail: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email > ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- > You are on the CC list for the bug. >
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:36:53 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 35A86704098 for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:36:54 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 25859 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 20:36:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:36:50 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ 3b6a815e-0487-4aa0-9bfc-b4ed53f2aa6c@exchange.discovery.com 75f74881-f01d-417b-99f0-8dfca5c547e4@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:42:07 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <fc5b27a7-812e-45ad-921d-ea9bc2463771@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:43:03 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 703AA704098 for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:43:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 1029 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 20:43:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:43:00 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ 3a193bdc-ca0f-4171-85e4-390f62a4f055@exchange.discovery.com b6e2898c-afd9-4630-892b-01962fd090d3@exchange.discovery.com 33a8d458-5ac8-46a6-a0c7-d9095b1f3906@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:51:13 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <602aefc0-70dc-4c4a-9e32-4fd1f51100d7@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:50:39 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 99C327040AD for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:50:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 6529 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 20:50:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:50:36 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ a0b5d31c-4b60-498a-88c9-f22634cc453c@exchange.discovery.com 0755e542-6fbe-4027-bdc4-69ffafba32a6@exchange.discovery.com e525d940-3df5-43ef-9012-36bb82ef93d5@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:01:27 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1a7e7dd5-beec-4e1f-a6b0-9e5c4237efd2@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:56:53 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C6D86704098 for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 16:56:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 13694 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 20:56:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 20:56:49 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ b961d911-beb7-4994-b60c-903ac28428ad@exchange.discovery.com a7b850cb-0eb8-4e02-8463-750a407c8d70@exchange.discovery.com 73da3815-c263-4eec-80b3-4692d8c04376@exchange.discovery.com 7707959c-627f-42dd-a95a-a9588cc517fd@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:23:25 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <e54f78f7-c5e3-40a5-bbac-61d2e64ac746@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:07:05 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id DBF867040B8 for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:07:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 18374 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 21:07:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:07:02 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ 3b6a815e-0487-4aa0-9bfc-b4ed53f2aa6c@exchange.discovery.com 75f74881-f01d-417b-99f0-8dfca5c547e4@exchange.discovery.com fc5b27a7-812e-45ad-921d-ea9bc2463771@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:37:11 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <8a07a090-506c-4f88-b3d2-3e4621a7da67@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:18:25 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2ADFC7040B8 for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:18:25 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 27500 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 21:18:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:18:21 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ 3a193bdc-ca0f-4171-85e4-390f62a4f055@exchange.discovery.com b6e2898c-afd9-4630-892b-01962fd090d3@exchange.discovery.com 33a8d458-5ac8-46a6-a0c7-d9095b1f3906@exchange.discovery.com 602aefc0-70dc-4c4a-9e32-4fd1f51100d7@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:43:21 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <53b767a5-c15c-4bba-9775-16e03e317d4f@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:24:57 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3F3517040BA for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:24:58 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 30294 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 21:24:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:24:54 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ b961d911-beb7-4994-b60c-903ac28428ad@exchange.discovery.com a7b850cb-0eb8-4e02-8463-750a407c8d70@exchange.discovery.com 73da3815-c263-4eec-80b3-4692d8c04376@exchange.discovery.com 7707959c-627f-42dd-a95a-a9588cc517fd@exchange.discovery.com e54f78f7-c5e3-40a5-bbac-61d2e64ac746@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:57:10 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <633664dc-4892-489a-b320-bda66ad0fabc@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:26:35 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C3A9A7040BA for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:26:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 462 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 21:26:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:26:33 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ a0b5d31c-4b60-498a-88c9-f22634cc453c@exchange.discovery.com 0755e542-6fbe-4027-bdc4-69ffafba32a6@exchange.discovery.com e525d940-3df5-43ef-9012-36bb82ef93d5@exchange.discovery.com 1a7e7dd5-beec-4e1f-a6b0-9e5c4237efd2@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 20:50:56 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <3041abaf-f987-4e40-b7c7-c9b159544a4f@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:29:43 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 999E67040BA for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:29:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 1188 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 21:29:42 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:29:39 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ 3b6a815e-0487-4aa0-9bfc-b4ed53f2aa6c@exchange.discovery.com 75f74881-f01d-417b-99f0-8dfca5c547e4@exchange.discovery.com fc5b27a7-812e-45ad-921d-ea9bc2463771@exchange.discovery.com 8a07a090-506c-4f88-b3d2-3e4621a7da67@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:07:22 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <224e29a1-730d-4092-bfdb-e649fb8132f1@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:36:07 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 535EB7040BA for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:36:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 11311 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 21:36:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:36:05 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ 3a193bdc-ca0f-4171-85e4-390f62a4f055@exchange.discovery.com b6e2898c-afd9-4630-892b-01962fd090d3@exchange.discovery.com 33a8d458-5ac8-46a6-a0c7-d9095b1f3906@exchange.discovery.com 602aefc0-70dc-4c4a-9e32-4fd1f51100d7@exchange.discovery.com 53b767a5-c15c-4bba-9775-16e03e317d4f@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:18:42 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <1cc42dec-b866-4900-ad37-8b3e7eace8c7@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:42:47 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id EF2F67040BA for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:42:46 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 26573 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 21:42:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:42:42 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ b961d911-beb7-4994-b60c-903ac28428ad@exchange.discovery.com a7b850cb-0eb8-4e02-8463-750a407c8d70@exchange.discovery.com 73da3815-c263-4eec-80b3-4692d8c04376@exchange.discovery.com 7707959c-627f-42dd-a95a-a9588cc517fd@exchange.discovery.com e54f78f7-c5e3-40a5-bbac-61d2e64ac746@exchange.discovery.com 633664dc-4892-489a-b320-bda66ad0fabc@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:25:12 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <79827d9a-1449-4443-92a9-c40b369a6224@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:48:38 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4B8997040BA for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:48:37 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 29889 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 21:48:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:48:33 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ a0b5d31c-4b60-498a-88c9-f22634cc453c@exchange.discovery.com 0755e542-6fbe-4027-bdc4-69ffafba32a6@exchange.discovery.com e525d940-3df5-43ef-9012-36bb82ef93d5@exchange.discovery.com 1a7e7dd5-beec-4e1f-a6b0-9e5c4237efd2@exchange.discovery.com 3041abaf-f987-4e40-b7c7-c9b159544a4f@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:26:50 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <9f7270fa-443b-4595-8b76-a3ec84f70f05@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:52:03 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 654CA7040BA for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 17:52:04 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 32754 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 21:52:03 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 21:52:01 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ 3b6a815e-0487-4aa0-9bfc-b4ed53f2aa6c@exchange.discovery.com 75f74881-f01d-417b-99f0-8dfca5c547e4@exchange.discovery.com fc5b27a7-812e-45ad-921d-ea9bc2463771@exchange.discovery.com 8a07a090-506c-4f88-b3d2-3e4621a7da67@exchange.discovery.com 224e29a1-730d-4092-bfdb-e649fb8132f1@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:29:58 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <901af40f-041b-4077-a8e8-fd2d405e10ea@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:02:21 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 4452D7040DB for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:02:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 7854 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 22:02:19 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 22:02:16 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ b961d911-beb7-4994-b60c-903ac28428ad@exchange.discovery.com a7b850cb-0eb8-4e02-8463-750a407c8d70@exchange.discovery.com 73da3815-c263-4eec-80b3-4692d8c04376@exchange.discovery.com 7707959c-627f-42dd-a95a-a9588cc517fd@exchange.discovery.com e54f78f7-c5e3-40a5-bbac-61d2e64ac746@exchange.discovery.com 633664dc-4892-489a-b320-bda66ad0fabc@exchange.discovery.com 79827d9a-1449-4443-92a9-c40b369a6224@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:43:06 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <380f6614-fc36-4f51-921c-2091af21f353@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:07:39 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 8AB727040DB for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:07:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 10993 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 22:07:39 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 22:07:37 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ a0b5d31c-4b60-498a-88c9-f22634cc453c@exchange.discovery.com 0755e542-6fbe-4027-bdc4-69ffafba32a6@exchange.discovery.com e525d940-3df5-43ef-9012-36bb82ef93d5@exchange.discovery.com 1a7e7dd5-beec-4e1f-a6b0-9e5c4237efd2@exchange.discovery.com 3041abaf-f987-4e40-b7c7-c9b159544a4f@exchange.discovery.com 9f7270fa-443b-4595-8b76-a3ec84f70f05@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:48:51 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <84a0790e-d4d7-4c7f-8dfe-7b2c0940b590@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:09:19 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 855147040DB for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:09:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 11421 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 22:09:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 22:09:17 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ 3a193bdc-ca0f-4171-85e4-390f62a4f055@exchange.discovery.com b6e2898c-afd9-4630-892b-01962fd090d3@exchange.discovery.com 33a8d458-5ac8-46a6-a0c7-d9095b1f3906@exchange.discovery.com 602aefc0-70dc-4c4a-9e32-4fd1f51100d7@exchange.discovery.com 53b767a5-c15c-4bba-9775-16e03e317d4f@exchange.discovery.com 1cc42dec-b866-4900-ad37-8b3e7eace8c7@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:36:25 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <2b7fbf3b-52ce-4908-b2c9-0ade5dad314f@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:14:41 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id C10AD7040BA for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:14:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 17507 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 22:14:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 22:14:38 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ 3b6a815e-0487-4aa0-9bfc-b4ed53f2aa6c@exchange.discovery.com 75f74881-f01d-417b-99f0-8dfca5c547e4@exchange.discovery.com fc5b27a7-812e-45ad-921d-ea9bc2463771@exchange.discovery.com 8a07a090-506c-4f88-b3d2-3e4621a7da67@exchange.discovery.com 224e29a1-730d-4092-bfdb-e649fb8132f1@exchange.discovery.com 901af40f-041b-4077-a8e8-fd2d405e10ea@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:52:19 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <27d788d5-1b73-4683-9337-76e3cf5699e4@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
Delivery has failed to these recipients or distribution lists: postmaster@ansarisbio.com<mailto:postmaster@ansarisbio.com> The recipient's e-mail address was not found in the recipient's e-mail system. Microsoft Exchange will not try to redeliver this message for you. Please check the e-mail address and try resending this message, or provide the following diagnostic text to your system administrator. ________________________________ Sent by Microsoft Exchange Server 2007 Diagnostic information for administrators: Generating server: discovery.com postmaster@ansarisbio.com #550 5.1.1 RESOLVER.ADR.RecipNotFound; not found ##rfc822;postmaster@ansarisbio.com Original message headers: Received: from ns1.locuspharma.com (192.168.254.2) by exchange.discovery.com (172.16.30.201) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 8.1.358.0; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:18:52 -0400 Received: from sourceware.org (server1.sourceware.org [209.132.180.131]) by ns1.locuspharma.com (Postfix) with SMTP id D0F047040BA for <postmaster@ansarisbio.com>; Tue, 5 Oct 2010 18:18:52 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 20283 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Oct 2010 22:18:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,MISSING_MID X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Oct 2010 22:18:49 +0000 From: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: <postmaster@ansarisbio.com> Subject: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Undeliverable: Re: Undeliverable: [Bug middle-end/323] optimized code gives strange floating point results In-Reply-To: References: bug-323-6174@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ b961d911-beb7-4994-b60c-903ac28428ad@exchange.discovery.com a7b850cb-0eb8-4e02-8463-750a407c8d70@exchange.discovery.com 73da3815-c263-4eec-80b3-4692d8c04376@exchange.discovery.com 7707959c-627f-42dd-a95a-a9588cc517fd@exchange.discovery.com e54f78f7-c5e3-40a5-bbac-61d2e64ac746@exchange.discovery.com 633664dc-4892-489a-b320-bda66ad0fabc@exchange.discovery.com 79827d9a-1449-4443-92a9-c40b369a6224@exchange.discovery.com 380f6614-fc36-4f51-921c-2091af21f353@exchange.discovery.com Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 22:02:36 +0000 X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <8e895831-955b-4cc5-bc4a-7165fccc1456@exchange.discovery.com> Return-Path: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org
*** Bug 47282 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 47834 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 47600 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 48236 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 38777 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 53095 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 55267 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 55544 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 55700 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 55787 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 55939 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 57080 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 57669 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 59168 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Joseph S. Myers from comment #127) > It would be possible to implement the option for non-C languages, to > provide whatever predictable semantics are appropriate for those > languages (whether or not described in their standards). Note that > bug 323 was originally reported with a C++ testcase. […] It > would probably be most appropriate not to close bug 323 without having > some form of predictable semantics available for each language. Would it make sense to file one bug report per language, marking all of them as blocking this one here, so we can keep track of progress per language? I'm particularly interested in C++, but I guess others might care for other front-ends.
*** Bug 61626 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Martin von Gagern from comment #193) > Would it make sense to file one bug report per language, marking all of them > as blocking this one here, so we can keep track of progress per language? > I'm particularly interested in C++, but I guess others might care for other > front-ends. Feel free to do just that, specially if you are planning to work on it. This PR has become too long and full of outdated info (and useless comments) to be really useful.
I believe the latest status of this PR is explained by comment 127. I added this as the URL of the bug for people to find. Also, the official FAQ for this (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#nonbugs_general) is seriously lacking info and outdated. From now on, I'll point people to: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#PR323
(In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #196) > Also, the official FAQ for this (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#nonbugs_general) > is seriously lacking info and outdated. From now on, I'll point people to: > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#PR323 Note that this bug was mainly about the excess precision of x87 FPU, though its summary just says "optimized code gives strange floating point results". But the users should be aware that the floating-point results can still depend on the optimization level because this is allowed by the ISO C standard. For instance, if one has code like x*y+z, a FMA can be used or not depending on the target architecture and the optimization level (see also bug 37845 about this), and this can change the results.
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #197) > (In reply to Manuel López-Ibáñez from comment #196) > > Also, the official FAQ for this (https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/#nonbugs_general) > > is seriously lacking info and outdated. From now on, I'll point people to: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#PR323 > > Note that this bug was mainly about the excess precision of x87 FPU, though I added your comment to the FAQ but feel welcome to extend it: https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/FAQ#PR323 What it is also missing is a criteria to distinguish normal behavior from actual GCC bugs (and there are GCC bugs like bug 37845 and others for optimizations that should only be done with ffast-math). Currently, any floating-point issue is likely to end up here.
*** Bug 64808 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 66282 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 62623 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
+++~~++ 1 8774358667 Dell customer service |dell Printer helpline number !!Call 1-877-435-8667 dell Tech Support Phone Number Canada 1-877-435-8667 dell support number, dell support, dell printer support, dell tech support, dell technical support, dell customer service number, dell customer service, dell tech support number, dell support center, dell printer support number, hewlett packard support, dell contact number, dell phone number, dell help and support, dell customer support, dell printer help, dell technical support number, dell support phone number, hewlett packard customer service, dell printers support, dell customer service phone number, dell number, dell customer care, dell contact, dell tech support phone number, dell support chat, dell customer support number, dell customer care number, contact dell support, dell help, dell phone, dell printer support phone number, dell customer support phone number, dell printer tech support, dell phone support, dell technical support phone number, dell laptop support number, hewlett packard printer support, dell helpline, dell telephone support, dell online support, dell support contact, dell chat support, hewlett packard phone number, dell printer customer service, dell printer tech support number, dell product support, hewlett packard customer service phone number, dell computer support number, dell support contact number, dell support printer, dell computer support, dell tech support chat, dell helpline number, dell laptop support, hewlett packard tech support, dell online chat, hewlett packard technical support, dell printer help line, phone number for dell support, hewlett packard support phone number, dell printer technical support, hewlett packard customer service number, dell service number, hewlett packard helpline, dell customer care no, dell printer customer service number, dell help number, dell printer customer service phone number, dell 1877 number, dell support phone, dell support line, hewlett packard contact number, dell printer tech support phone number, dell printer customer support phone number, dell printers help, call dell support, dell printer support chat, hewlett packard support number, hewlett packard tech support number, dell support telephone number, hewlett packard tech support phone number, call dell, dell contact support, hewlett packard technical support phone number, dell support centre, hewlett packard customer support, dell desktop support, dell laptop customer service, contact dell printer support, dell pc support, dell laptop customer care number, dell support for printers, dell printer customer care, dell customer care phone number, hewlett packard help, phone number for dell, dell online help, dell laptop customer care, dell helpline phone number, dell printer customer support, dell technical support chat, dell computer help, dell support numbers, dell technical support contact number, dell telephone number, dell printer technical support phone number, dell printer helpline, dell support printers, dell support online, dell printer contact number, dell help phone number, dell printer customer care number, contact hewlett packard by phone, dell printer phone support, hewlett packard printers support, dell tech support phone, dell technical help, dell laptop tech support number, contact dell by phone, dell support call, dell computers support, hewlett packard customer service telephone number, phone number for hewlett packard, dell online support chat, dell laptop customer service number, dell online chat support, dell printers customer service, hewlett packard customer service phone, dell laptop tech support, dell service phone number, hewlett packard printer help, phone number for dell printers, dell troubleshooting phone number, dell 877 number, hewlett packard technical support number, contact dell support phone, phone number for dell printer support, dell customer support chat, dell help and support number, contact hewlett packard, dell laptop support phone number, dell printers customer service phone number, dell laptop customer service phone number, dell computer support phone number, dell pavilion support, dell computer customer service, dell customer services, hewlett packard telephone number, dell helpline no, dell help desk number, contact dell support phone number, hewlett packard contact, dell phone numbers, dell printers customer care number, dell printer help and support, contact dell technical support, dell contact numbers, contact dell support chat, call dell tech support, dell customer service phone, dell help support, dell computer tech support, dell assistance phone number, dell customer service telephone number, hewlett packard printer support phone number, dell contact support number, dell support center phone number, dell support phone numbers, tech support for dell, dell it support, dell laptop helpline, dell technical, dell laptop technical support number, dell printers tech support phone number, dell printers support phone number, hewlett packard help desk phone number, dell computer tech support phone number, dell customer service number for laptop, dell printer helpline number, contact dell support by phone, hewlett packard support center, dell laptop customer care no, dell printer support telephone number, dell support services, dell customer service number for printers, dell product support number, dell laptop tech support phone number, dell printer helpline phone number, contact dell customer support, hewlett packard customer support phone number, dell printers technical support, dell customer care center, support for dell printers, dell printer support center, phone number for dell tech support, dell desktop customer care number, dell laptops support, dell printer online support, dell printer phone number, hewlett packard printers support phone number, technical support for dell printers phone number, dell help center phone number, contact dell tech support, call dell printer support, dell printers customer support, dell computer customer service number, dell printers helpline, dell customer care contact number, dell laptop help, dell computer customer service phone number, phone number for hewlett packard customer service, hewlett packard 877 number, dell printer help phone number, dell printers help phone number, dell printer phone number for customer service, dell computer technical support phone number, customer service dell, dell support technical support number, contact number for dell, dell computers support phone number, dell printers support number, dell printer technical support number, contact dell tech support by phone, dell computer customer care number, dell printer 877 number, call dell customer service, dell printer help center, dell computers customer service, dell printer help desk, hewlett packard computer support, dell printers technical support number, dell help desk phone number, dell printer support phone, dell contact help, contact dell laptop support, dell customer service contact number, support for dell printer, dell printer customer care no, dell computer phone number, dell tech help, dell pc support number, dell laptop customer support, dell desktop support number, support dell printer, dell support hours, number for dell support, dell support customer service number, dell contact phone number, customer service number for dell printers, dell computers help, dell tech support contact number, dell phone support number_ ¶ ¶
*** Bug 34261 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 85661 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 85957 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 87128 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Why not try some Loops my friend Castro B, http://gratisdatingsite.nl
*** Bug 93620 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
If new reports are going to be marked as duplicates of this, then can it please be moved from SUSPENDED status to REOPENED? The situation is far worse than what seems to have been realized last this was worked on, as evidenced by pr 85957. These issues just came up again breaking real-world software in https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/issues/1906
(In reply to Rich Felker from comment #211) > If new reports are going to be marked as duplicates of this, then can it > please be moved from SUSPENDED status to REOPENED? The situation is far > worse than what seems to have been realized last this was worked on, as > evidenced by pr 85957. These issues just came up again breaking real-world > software in https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/issues/1906 Uh... I'm not seeing "REOPENED" on the menu for possible statuses? Maybe a bug can only have the REOPENED status if it's actually been closed in the past, and this might not have actually been closed before? I thought this had been closed at one point, but it looks like I was wrong... Hold on, let me check the (very long) history for this bug...
(In reply to Eric Gallager from comment #212) > (In reply to Rich Felker from comment #211) > > If new reports are going to be marked as duplicates of this, then can it > > please be moved from SUSPENDED status to REOPENED? The situation is far > > worse than what seems to have been realized last this was worked on, as > > evidenced by pr 85957. These issues just came up again breaking real-world > > software in https://github.com/OSGeo/PROJ/issues/1906 > > Uh... I'm not seeing "REOPENED" on the menu for possible statuses? Maybe a > bug can only have the REOPENED status if it's actually been closed in the > past, and this might not have actually been closed before? I thought this > had been closed at one point, but it looks like I was wrong... Hold on, let > me check the (very long) history for this bug... OK, never mind, it looks like this bug has actually been closed before like I thought originally; whether or not a bug can have its status changed to REOPENED or not must depend on its current status, rather than any past status it might have had... So, I guess I can either close it temporarily and then immediately reopen it, or give it some other status. Which would you prefer?
I'm not particular in terms of the path it takes as long as this gets back to a status where it's on the radar for fixing.
According to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_status the possible status are UNCONFIRMED, CONFIRMED and IN_PROGRESS. I think that the correct one is CONFIRMED.
(In reply to Vincent Lefèvre from comment #215) > According to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_status > the possible status are UNCONFIRMED, CONFIRMED and IN_PROGRESS. I think that > the correct one is CONFIRMED. Those are not the main policies. They are here: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/management.html fields.html needs to be updated some day to match the actual fields used by GCC (there is no CONFIRMED status, there is NEW) and the above policies. This is one of those bugs that it is so broad, controversial and noisy that almost no active developer is going to look at it. Bugs don't get fixed because they are NEW. There are 6979 NEW bug reports right now and many of them will never get fixed (1300 of them are more than 10 years old). My humble suggestion for those interested in floating-point issues in GCC would be to create self-contained specific bugs with minimised reproducible testcases, a clear analysis of what GCC is doing wrong, what GCC should be doing instead, and suggestions on how it could be fixed. If the bug just says some variation of "optimized code gives strange floating point results", it will end up here and probably nobody will ever look at it. For Rich's specific bug report, the relevant discussion is in https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=323#c127 and the expected fix is known: Implement -fexcess-precision=standard for C++ as it was done for C. Perhaps it would be useful to create a new PR that blocks this one that analyses what needs to be done towards that specific goal, collects testcases, etc. The main issue is not that this PR is not in the developers' radar. All GCC developers working on the C/C++ FEs and optimizers are aware of the infamous PR323 and of the solution suggested in comment 127. The issue is simply that no one working on the C++ FE has the time or motivation to implement -fexcess-precision=standard. If you are interested in that, just study this email: https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2008-11/msg00105.html and do for C++ the same steps that Joseph did C.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2020, vincent-gcc at vinc17 dot net wrote: > According to https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_status > the possible status are UNCONFIRMED, CONFIRMED and IN_PROGRESS. I think that > the correct one is CONFIRMED. That's generic Bugzilla documentation that's not relevant to the custom GCC configuration of bug states, which is documented at <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugs/management.html> (we also have NEW and ASSIGNED not CONFIRMED and IN_PROGRESS). SUSPENDED is accurate for a bug that is explicitly known to be hard and not being worked on, for reasons other than waiting for further information from the submitter. It's completely correct for this bug, which should be left as SUSPENDED unless someone decides to work on it and so changes it to ASSIGNED with themselves as assignee.
*** Bug 94852 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 39128 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 30813 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
If you have some problems with your computer and can't deal with all the homework you need in time - Exclusivethesis can help you. You can dissertation abstracts online https://exclusivethesis.com/dissertation-abstracts-online/ and receive a high-quality work
*** Bug 103030 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
/gdb/arch/arc.c:117:43: required from here http://www.compilatori.com/ /usr/include/c++/4.8.2/bits/hashtable_policy.h:195:39: error: no matching https://www.mktrade.fi/ function for call to ‘std::pair<const arc_arch_features, const std::unique_ptr<target_desc, http://www-look-4.com/ target_desc_deleter> >::pair(const arc_arch_features&, target_desc*&)’ : _M_v(std::forward<_Args>(__args)...) { } http://www.acpirateradio.co.uk/ ^ /usr/include/c++/4.8.2/bits/hashtable_policy.h:195:39: note: candidates are: https://www.webb-dev.co.uk/ In file included from /usr/include/c++/4.8.2/utility:70:0, from /usr/include/c++/4.8.2/tuple:38, http://www.logoarts.co.uk/ from /usr/include/c++/4.8.2/functional:55, from ../../gdb/../gdbsupport/ptid.h:35, https://komiya-dental.com/ from ../../gdb/../gdbsupport/common-defs.h:123, from ../../gdb/arch/arc.c:19: http://www.slipstone.co.uk/ /usr/include/c++/4.8.2/bits/stl_pair.h:206:9: note: template<class ... _Args1, long unsigned int ..._Indexes1, http://the-hunters.org/ class ... _Args2, long unsigned int ..._Indexes2> std::pair<_T1, http://embermanchester.uk/ _T2>::pair(std::tuple<_Args1 ...>&, std::tuple<_Args2 ...>&, std::_Index_tuple http://fishingnewsletters.co.uk/ <_Indexes1 ...>, std::_Index_tuple<_Indexes2 ...>) pair(tuple<_Args1...>&, tuple<_Args2...>&, http://connstr.net/ ^ -------->8--------- http://joerg.li/ Thanks to Tome de Vries' investigation, same fix applies in ARC's case as well: --------8<--------- http://www.jopspeech.com/ diff --git a/gdb/arch/arc.c b/gdb/arch/arc.c index 3808f9f..a5385ce 100644 http://www.go-mk-websites.co.uk/ --- a/gdb/arch/arc.c +++ b/gdb/arch/arc.c http://www.wearelondonmade.com/ @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ struct arc_arch_features_hasher target_desc *tdesc = arc_create_target_description (features); https://waytowhatsnext.com/ /* Add the newly created target description to the repertoire. */ http://www.mconstantine.co.uk/ - arc_tdesc_cache.emplace (features, tdesc); http://www.iu-bloomington.com/ + arc_tdesc_cache.emplace (features, target_desc_up (tdesc));
*** Bug 106165 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
The master branch has been updated by Jakub Jelinek <jakub@gcc.gnu.org>: https://gcc.gnu.org/g:98e341130f87984af07c884fea773c0bb3cc8821 commit r13-3290-g98e341130f87984af07c884fea773c0bb3cc8821 Author: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> Date: Fri Oct 14 09:28:57 2022 +0200 c++: Implement excess precision support for C++ [PR107097, PR323] The following patch implements excess precision support for C++. Like for C, it uses EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR tree to say that its operand is evaluated in excess precision and what the semantic type of the expression is. In most places I've followed what the C FE does in similar spots, so e.g. for binary ops if one or both operands are already EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR, strip those away or for operations that might need excess precision (+, -, *, /) check if the operands should use excess precision and convert to that type and at the end wrap into EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR with the common semantic type. This patch follows the C99 handling where it differs from C11 handling. There are some cases which needed to be handled differently, the C FE can just strip EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR (replace it with its operand) when handling explicit cast, but that IMHO isn't right for C++ - the discovery what exact conversion should be used (e.g. if user conversion or standard or their sequence) should be decided based on the semantic type (i.e. type of EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR), and that decision continues in convert_like* where we pick the right user conversion, again, if say some class has ctor from double and long double and we are on ia32 with standard excess precision promoting float/double to long double, then we should pick the ctor from double. Or when some other class has ctor from just double, and EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR semantic type is float, we should choose the user ctor from double, but actually just convert the long double excess precision to double and not to float first. We need to make sure even identity conversion converts from excess precision to the semantic one though, but if identity is chained with other conversions, we don't want the identity next_conversion to drop to semantic precision only to widen afterwards. The existing testcases tweaks were for cases on i686-linux where excess precision breaks those tests, e.g. if we have double d = 4.2; if (d == 4.2) then it does the expected thing only with -fexcess-precision=fast, because with -fexcess-precision=standard it is actually double d = 4.2; if ((long double) d == 4.2L) where 4.2L is different from 4.2. I've added -fexcess-precision=fast to some tests and changed other tests to use constants that are exactly representable and don't suffer from these excess precision issues. There is one exception, pr68180.C looks like a bug in the patch which is also present in the C FE (so I'd like to get it resolved incrementally in both). Reduced testcase: typedef float __attribute__((vector_size (16))) float32x4_t; float32x4_t foo(float32x4_t x, float y) { return x + y; } with -m32 -std=c11 -Wno-psabi or -m32 -std=c++17 -Wno-psabi it is rejected with: pr68180.c:2:52: error: conversion of scalar âlong doubleâ to vector âfloat32x4_tâ {aka â__vector(4) floatâ} involves truncation but without excess precision (say just -std=c11 -Wno-psabi or -std=c++17 -Wno-psabi) it is accepted. Perhaps we should pass down the semantic type to scalar_to_vector and use the semantic type rather than excess precision type in the diagnostics. 2022-10-14 Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com> PR middle-end/323 PR c++/107097 gcc/ * doc/invoke.texi (-fexcess-precision=standard): Mention that the option now also works in C++. gcc/c-family/ * c-common.def (EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR): Remove comment part about the tree being specific to C/ObjC. * c-opts.cc (c_common_post_options): Handle flag_excess_precision in C++ the same as in C. * c-lex.cc (interpret_float): Set const_type to excess_precision () even for C++. gcc/cp/ * parser.cc (cp_parser_primary_expression): Handle EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR with REAL_CST operand the same as REAL_CST. * cvt.cc (cp_ep_convert_and_check): New function. * call.cc (build_conditional_expr): Add excess precision support. When type_after_usual_arithmetic_conversions returns error_mark_node, use gcc_checking_assert that it is because of uncomparable floating point ranks instead of checking all those conditions and make it work also with complex types. (convert_like_internal): Likewise. Add NESTED_P argument, pass true to recursive calls to convert_like. (convert_like): Add NESTED_P argument, pass it through to convert_like_internal. For other overload pass false to it. (convert_like_with_context): Pass false to NESTED_P. (convert_arg_to_ellipsis): Add excess precision support. (magic_varargs_p): For __builtin_is{finite,inf,inf_sign,nan,normal} and __builtin_fpclassify return 2 instead of 1, document what it means. (build_over_call): Don't handle former magic 2 which is no longer used, instead for magic 1 remove EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR. (perform_direct_initialization_if_possible): Pass false to NESTED_P convert_like argument. * constexpr.cc (cxx_eval_constant_expression): Handle EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR. (potential_constant_expression_1): Likewise. * pt.cc (tsubst_copy, tsubst_copy_and_build): Likewise. * cp-tree.h (cp_ep_convert_and_check): Declare. * cp-gimplify.cc (cp_fold): Handle EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR. * typeck.cc (cp_common_type): For COMPLEX_TYPEs, return error_mark_node if recursive call returned it. (convert_arguments): For magic 1 remove EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR. (cp_build_binary_op): Add excess precision support. When cp_common_type returns error_mark_node, use gcc_checking_assert that it is because of uncomparable floating point ranks instead of checking all those conditions and make it work also with complex types. (cp_build_unary_op): Likewise. (cp_build_compound_expr): Likewise. (build_static_cast_1): Remove EXCESS_PRECISION_EXPR. gcc/testsuite/ * gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-1.c: For C++ wrap abort and exit declarations into extern "C" block. * gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-2.c: Likewise. * gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-3.c: Likewise. Remove check_float_nonproto and check_double_nonproto tests for C++. * gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-7.c: For C++ wrap abort and exit declarations into extern "C" block. * gcc.target/i386/excess-precision-9.c: Likewise. * g++.target/i386/excess-precision-1.C: New test. * g++.target/i386/excess-precision-2.C: New test. * g++.target/i386/excess-precision-3.C: New test. * g++.target/i386/excess-precision-4.C: New test. * g++.target/i386/excess-precision-5.C: New test. * g++.target/i386/excess-precision-6.C: New test. * g++.target/i386/excess-precision-7.C: New test. * g++.target/i386/excess-precision-9.C: New test. * g++.target/i386/excess-precision-11.C: New test. * c-c++-common/dfp/convert-bfp-10.c: Add -fexcess-precision=fast as dg-additional-options. * c-c++-common/dfp/compare-eq-const.c: Likewise. * g++.dg/cpp1z/constexpr-96862.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/cpp1z/decomp12.C (main): Use 2.25 instead of 2.3 to avoid excess precision differences. * g++.dg/other/thunk1.C: Add -fexcess-precision=fast as dg-additional-options. * g++.dg/vect/pr64410.cc: Likewise. * g++.dg/cpp1y/pr68180.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/vect/pr89653.cc: Likewise. * g++.dg/cpp0x/variadic-tuple.C: Likewise. * g++.dg/cpp0x/nsdmi-union1.C: Use 4.25 instead of 4.2 to avoid excess precision differences. * g++.old-deja/g++.brendan/copy9.C: Add -fexcess-precision=fast as dg-additional-options. * g++.old-deja/g++.brendan/overload7.C: Likewise.
*** Bug 110564 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
In "See Also", there are several bugs that are related only to vectorization optimizations. What is the relation with this bug? For instance, PR89653 is "GCC (trunk and all earlier versions) fails to vectorize (SSE/AVX2/AVX-512) the following loop [...]". If this is SSE/AVX2/AVX-512, where does x86 extended precision occur?
PR64410 and PR68180 should also be removed from "See Also".
*** Bug 110622 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 113679 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 116230 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***