c++/6914: -O2 and -O give different results for the same valid FP code
Mon Jun 3 23:48:00 GMT 2002
Franz Sirl <Franz.Sirlfirstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> At 17:49 03.06.2002, Michael Veksler wrote:
> >If the decision will be to keep the current behavior, documentation
> > should be updated. It should be more clear that -float-store is
> > critical for IEEE
> > conformance on targets like x86. Also, the bugs section should
> > contain this as a known bug (and bug it is -- gcc does not
> > conform to the IEEE standard on x86).
> Because GCC does not mess with the settings of the CPU, which is
> certainly _not_ GCC's job. Checkout glibc's documentation and look
> at stuff like fpu_control.h and fenv.h.
I totaly agree that it is not GCC's job to fiddle with the settings of the
fpu_control.h took me by surprise (especially the _FPU_EXTENDED vs.
Do you think this is a glibc bug?
In "fpu_control.h" (at least 2.2-9) it is written:
/* The fdlibm code requires strict IEEE double precision arithmetic,
and no interrupts for exceptions, rounding to nearest. */
And then they go on and define
#define _FPU_DEFAULT 0x037f
Which effectively sets rounding to _FPU_EXTENDED (=0x300), instead of
This does seem like a glibc bug (documentation does not match reality).
But, there are several open issues:
1. This should be more clearly stated in the documentation of GCC.
- In the bugs section (or non-bugs, actually).
Recommend to use either -float-store, or the following code:
fpu_bits &= ~_FPU_EXTENDED;
fpu_bits |= _FPU_DOUBLE;
- In gcc --help (on -float-store)
2. The _FPU_* macros are not documented in the "man" pages, nor in the
(the only reference to them is in g77.info)
I still get the feeling that GCC douesthe wrong thing here. Are there no
opcodes for "divide and round to double", and for "compare as double" ?
I think that GCC should minimize its dependency on the "correctness" of
CPU settings. This of course, only if that does not change code size, and
does not hurt performance.
More information about the Gcc-bugs