From: Carsten H. (T. R. <ra...@ra...> - 2005-11-15 08:03:20
|
On Mon, 14 Nov 2005 23:05:31 -0800 David Sharp <whe...@gm...> babbled: > On 11/14/05, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <ra...@ra...> wrote: > > On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 05:58:52 +0000 Mike Frysinger <va...@ge...> > > babbled: > > > > > On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 06:38:33AM +0100, Vincent Torri wrote: > > > > > > > > maybe one should test in configure.in if the processor is an mad64 or > > > > not, then define a specific flag according tot the arch and add it to > > > > the flags when one compiles. > > > > > > gcc bugs change greatly between releases ... trying to track which CFLAGS > > > are 'safe' and which ones are not is a huge pita > > > > > > a lot easier to say to the user: > > > dont use stupid optimizations > > > > -funroll-loops... ummm (i just HAD to say that!) > > > > um.. the main problem is gcc4's amd64 build usies sse math by DEFAULT - > > thats the problem. > > not just gcc4, i have gcc 3.4.4 here, and it compiles sse by default. > > > i frankly dont know what exactly the problewm is - someone being > > able to print a list of results, variables over a series of calculations and > > plot the difference (errors) in them all at all stages (all intermediate > > variable values too) would be useful. > > this is exactly what i did. i'll attach my boneheaded program and > results, including binaries in case you want to disassemble or > something. Hopefully it will be useful to you. > > Right off the bat, the first thing i notice is that all errors are > introduced in divisions, but not all divisions. not much i can do as i have no amd64 box... but others can check in on it... -- ------------- Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -------------- The Rasterman (Carsten Haitzler) ra...@ra... 裸好多 Tokyo, Japan (東京 日本) |