This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org 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]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: GCC options and floating-point correctness (benchmarks)

From: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>
To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
Cc: gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:32:58 -0500
Subject: Re: GCC options and floating-point correctness (benchmarks)
References: <200403251805.i2PI5ung011979@mururoa.inria.fr> <4063269E.8020708@coyotegulch.com> <20040325112448.A18805@synopsys.com>

Joe Buck wrote:

But there's a problem.  People have posted trivial programs where icc
majorly violates IEEE rules.  Could Intel be tuning specifically to work
well on paranoia, but take impermissible shortcuts elsewhere?

That's certainly possible. It's not like we haven't seen such creativity in other situations. However, I'd want to find some proof before making any accusations in this case.

--
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Software Invention for High-Performance Computing

Follow-Ups:
- Re: GCC options and floating-point correctness (benchmarks)
  - From: Joe Buck

References:
- Re: GCC options and floating-point correctness (benchmarks)
  - From: Theodore Papadopoulo
- Re: GCC options and floating-point correctness (benchmarks)
  - From: Scott Robert Ladd
- Re: GCC options and floating-point correctness (benchmarks)
  - From: Joe Buck

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