This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Re: g77 -ieee crash in 1.0.3a

>>>>> "Craig" == Craig Burley <> 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
 Craig> such; 

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.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]