This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
RE: GCC options and floating-point correctness (benchmarks)
- From: "Dave Korn" <dk at artimi dot com>
- To: "'gcc mailing list'" <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 11:19:59 -0000
- Subject: RE: GCC options and floating-point correctness (benchmarks)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: gcc-owner On Behalf Of Joe Buck
> Sent: 25 March 2004 19:44
> On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 02:32:58PM -0500, Scott Robert Ladd wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Agreed; we should be cautious before deciding that there is a problem.
> Are we certain, for example, that icc's optimization of
>
> (a+b)+c == a+(b+c)
>
> for double a, b, and c, is impermissibly aggressive?
>
<innocent> Why doesn't someone who has a licensed copy of ICC raise a bug
report with Intel? </innocent>
cheers,
DaveK
--
Can't think of a witty .sigline today....