This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: g77 -ieee crash in 1.0.3a
- To: Craig Burley <burley at gnu dot org>
- Subject: Re: g77 -ieee crash in 1.0.3a
- From: Dave Love <d dot love at dl dot ac dot uk>
- Date: 30 Jul 1998 18:02:08 +0100
- Cc: lindahl at cs dot virginia dot edu, egcs-patches at cygnus dot com, toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
- References: <199807300956.FAA16262@melange.gnu.org>
>>>>> "Craig" == Craig Burley <email@example.com> writes:
Craig> In particular, -mieee should be one of the options that gets
Craig> exercised for *all* tests on Alphas, at least for the g77
Craig> tests (but why stop there?!). The commentary already mentions
Craig> it, so that's taken care of.
What commentary? I can't find anything to that effect in the
testsuite, if that's what you mean. The comments in what you sent
don't make sense to me as they are. It seems to be referring to an
article I haven't seen (or maybe it's expired).
Craig> And if we have to simply stuff a .x file in for it someday to
Craig> just take care of that case, we can do that, but I'd rather
Craig> get the test in to the mainline (just so I can stop worrying
Craig> about it) and deal with -mieee later.
I'm confused. Is -mieee not necessary to get it to fail, then? Is
someone else dealing with the test stuff, i.e. _I_ don't have to worry
about it, for which I'd certainly be grateful?
Craig> Maybe LAPACK needs the larger range, smaller numbers, and
I didn't think it depended on IEEE arithmetic at all; someone else
suggested it did, but didn't reply when I asked for details.
Craig> even if it doesn't, -mieee surely should do nothing worse to
Craig> any code than to slow it down. Crashing isn't nice;
Craig> especially on a three-line test case. :)
Sorry, I thought I'd be credited with realizing that. It just sounded
as though background info could be usefully noted for the future,
especially as it was being assumed we should have tested it like that.