Hi, Mark, Sorry for my previous double-posting to the guile-devel maillist; just at that time I didn't have a reply from guile-bugs'.
I've run ./check-guile numbers.test, yes, it hasn't been invoked my "make check" from the top-level build directory. For the latest Guile compiled with CFLAGS="-mtune=native -march=native -O2" I've got the following: $ ./check-guile numbers.test Testing /usr/src/64bit/release/guile/guile-2.1.0-57/build/meta/guile ... numbers.test with GUILE_LOAD_PATH=/usr/src/64bit/release/guile/guile-2.1.0-57/src/guile-2.1.0/test-suite Running numbers.test FAIL: numbers.test: inexact->exact: smallest inexact: pos - arguments: (expected-value 1/202402253307310618352495346718917307049556649764142118356901358027430339567995346891960383701437124495187077864316811911389808737385793476867013399940738509921517424276566361364466907742093216341239767678472745068562007483424692698618103355649159556340810056512358769552333414615230502532186327508646006263307707741093494784 actual-value 0) FAIL: numbers.test: inexact->exact: smallest inexact: neg - arguments: (expected-value -1/202402253307310618352495346718917307049556649764142118356901358027430339567995346891960383701437124495187077864316811911389808737385793476867013399940738509921517424276566361364466907742093216341239767678472745068562007483424692698618103355649159556340810056512358769552333414615230502532186327508646006263307707741093494784 actual-value 0) FAIL: numbers.test: inexact->exact: smallest inexact * 2: pos - arguments: (expected-value 1/101201126653655309176247673359458653524778324882071059178450679013715169783997673445980191850718562247593538932158405955694904368692896738433506699970369254960758712138283180682233453871046608170619883839236372534281003741712346349309051677824579778170405028256179384776166707307615251266093163754323003131653853870546747392 actual-value 0) FAIL: numbers.test: inexact->exact: smallest inexact * 2: neg - arguments: (expected-value -1/101201126653655309176247673359458653524778324882071059178450679013715169783997673445980191850718562247593538932158405955694904368692896738433506699970369254960758712138283180682233453871046608170619883839236372534281003741712346349309051677824579778170405028256179384776166707307615251266093163754323003131653853870546747392 actual-value 0) FAIL: numbers.test: inexact->exact: smallest inexact * 3: pos - arguments: (expected-value 3/202402253307310618352495346718917307049556649764142118356901358027430339567995346891960383701437124495187077864316811911389808737385793476867013399940738509921517424276566361364466907742093216341239767678472745068562007483424692698618103355649159556340810056512358769552333414615230502532186327508646006263307707741093494784 actual-value 0) FAIL: numbers.test: inexact->exact: smallest inexact * 3: neg - arguments: (expected-value -3/202402253307310618352495346718917307049556649764142118356901358027430339567995346891960383701437124495187077864316811911389808737385793476867013399940738509921517424276566361364466907742093216341239767678472745068562007483424692698618103355649159556340810056512358769552333414615230502532186327508646006263307707741093494784 actual-value 0) Totals for this test run: passes: 28367 failures: 6 unexpected passes: 0 expected failures: 0 unresolved test cases: 0 untested test cases: 0 unsupported test cases: 0 errors: 0 Regards, Vasiliy On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Mark H Weaver <m...@netris.org> wrote: > Vasiliy <testtest_2...@ukr.net> writes: > >> It's just to highlight I've got that error of: >> fail: scm_from_double (1) == +nan.0 >> FAIL: test-conversion.exe >> >> while compiling with: >> CFLAGS="-mtune=native -march=native -Ofast -fomit-frame-pointer" > > I now see the problem. -Ofast implies -ffast-math, which implies > -funsafe-math-optimizations, -ffinite-math-only, etc. Specifically, > this enabled the compiler to optimize (guile_Inf / guile_Inf) to 1.0, > which foiled Guile's attempt to create a NaN object. > > From the GCC manual (Optimize Options): > > `-Ofast' > Disregard strict standards compliance. `-Ofast' enables all `-O3' > optimizations. It also enables optimizations that are not valid > for all standard compliant programs. It turns on `-ffast-math' > and the Fortran-specific `-fno-protect-parens' and > `-fstack-arrays'. > > My recommendation would be to avoid -Ofast, not just in Guile but in > general. It is likely to create subtle problems in a lot of software. > > Things like language interpreters in particular tend to push the > boundaries of standards compliance, and are likely to be broken in > subtle ways by -Ofast. > > It's reasonable and sometimes useful to use -Ofast in isolated modules > containing hot code, but only in modules whose -Ofast safety has been > investigated by someone who understands the associated compiler > optimizations, and is familiar with the kinds of breakage that can > occur. > >> There's, however, still an error with 'test-ffi', and there's no >> automatic invocation of 'numbers.test'. > > Strange. Did you run "make check" in the top-level build directory? > > If that doesn't work, maybe try: "./check-guile numbers.test" > >> Would be there any support for -Ofast in future? > > I doubt that we would officially support it. It's possible that the > bugs introduced by -Ofast will not affect you, I don't know. At the > very least, you are likely to get incorrect answers from the numerics > library in some cases. There might be more serious problems as well. > Some of these problems might be discovered by our test suite, which you > don't seem to be running most of. Others might remain undetected. > >> Just one point more here: the latest autogen when compiled >> --with-guile=2.2 refers to 'scm_subr_table' not present in mainstream >> Guile. > > This indicates that you compiled against Guile 1.8's headers. You'll > need to arrange to have Guile 2.2's headers come first in the search > path. I guess the --with-libguile option to autogen's configure is what > you need. > > Regards, > Mark
