This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: 200.sixtrack is miscomparing on x86_64 and i686 (-O2) since Mar 19th
- From: Richard Guenther <rguenther at suse dot de>
- To: Jerry DeLisle <jvdelisle at verizon dot net>
- Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org, fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Thu, 22 Mar 2007 10:38:31 +0100 (CET)
- Subject: Re: 200.sixtrack is miscomparing on x86_64 and i686 (-O2) since Mar 19th
- References: <Pine.LNX.firstname.lastname@example.org> <4601CBE2.email@example.com>
On Wed, 21 Mar 2007, Jerry DeLisle wrote:
> Richard Guenther wrote:
> > The regression was introduced between rev 123033 and 123047. The likely
> > offender is
> > Index: libgfortran/ChangeLog
> > ===================================================================
> > --- libgfortran/ChangeLog (revision 123033)
> > +++ libgfortran/ChangeLog (revision 123047)
> > @@ -1,3 +1,15 @@
> > +2007-03-18 Jerry DeLisle <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > +
> > + PR libgfortran/31052
> > + * io/file_position (st_rewind): Fix comments. Remove use of
> > + test_endfile. Don't seek if already at 0 position. Use new
> Can you confirm that this occurs only with -O2 ?
No, it occurs also with -O3 (but -O2 is the lowest level I have checked).
> Can you revert the patch on a local tree and confirm this is it?
I'll do so later today.
> Would you be willing to help me debug this, the patch is not that complicated?
> If not is there anyone with SPEC that I can work with?
> Also, I do work out of my home and a Non-Disclosure Agreement is no problem to
I don't think a NDA will help here. I'll see if there's something