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: Robert Dewar <dewar at gnat dot com>
To: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>
Cc: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote at coyotegulch dot com>,Theodore Papadopoulo <Theodore dot Papadopoulo at sophia dot inria dot fr>,gcc mailing list <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2004 19:50:36 -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


I would expect so. I would expect ANY compiler to be tested against
Paranoia.

but take impermissible shortcuts elsewhere?

We already have some examples, so this is definitely the case.

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]