Bug 41195 - floating point optimization
Summary: floating point optimization
Status: RESOLVED DUPLICATE of bug 323
Alias: None
Product: gcc
Classification: Unclassified
Component: c++ (show other bugs)
Version: 4.2.1
: P3 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Not yet assigned to anyone
URL:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2009-08-31 03:52 UTC by Vikas
Modified: 2009-09-20 21:28 UTC (History)
66 users (show)

See Also:
Host: RHAS 5
Target:
Build:
Known to work:
Known to fail:
Last reconfirmed:

Attachments
test case (2.09 KB, application/zip)
2009-08-31 03:55 UTC, Vikas 		Details
View All Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Vikas 2009-08-31 03:52:05 UTC 
A simple sequence of floating point calculations gives different results on optimized builds and unoptimized builds. I have seen some bug reports, but this one is different as the error is reproduced only when the floating point calculation in question is called from a library. If i create a simple main method with the calculation in question, the error is not reproducible. I have a simple test case, how can i send it?
Comment 1 Vikas 2009-08-31 03:55:35 UTC 
Created attachment 18453 [details]
test case
Comment 2 Andrew Pinski 2009-08-31 06:21:13 UTC 
I think this is a duplicate of bug 323.  What target are you using?
Comment 3 Vikas.Mehta@roguewave.com 2009-09-01 15:22:23 UTC 
Subject: RE:  floating point optimization

Thanks for looking into this issue. 
Target: x86_64-redhat-linux

-----Original Message-----
From: pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org [mailto:gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org] 
Sent: Monday, August 31, 2009 12:21 AM
To: Vikas Mehta
Subject: [Bug c++/41195] floating point optimization



------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2009-08-31 06:21
-------
I think this is a duplicate of bug 323.  What target are you using?
Comment 4 Andrew Pinski 2009-09-20 21:28:33 UTC 
Yes it is a dup of 323.  Since really the target is 32bits :).

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 323 ***