Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-06-06 19:23:06 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > Laurent GUERBY wrote: > > >Such algorithm usually require a very detailed control of what's > >going on at the machine level, given current high level programming > >languages that means using assembler. > > No, that's not true, you might want t

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Laurent GUERBY wrote: Such algorithm usually require a very detailed control of what's going on at the machine level, given current high level programming languages that means using assembler. No, that's not true, you might want to look at some of Jim Demmel's work in this area. Or that man

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 23:10 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > Toon Moene wrote: > > >> But even this were fixed, many users would still complain. > >> That's why I think that the Linux kernel should set the CPU > >> in double-precision mode, like some other OS's (MS Windows, > >> *BSD) -- but this is o

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 11:01 AM, Daniel Berlin wrote: Mike says sarcastically, as if this isn't what tiger did :) Someday, get me drunk and ask me how hard abi compatibility is. :-( I hate how we did it, and I hate that it was necessary. I hate that bools on darwin are 4 bytes, be

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Wed, 2005-06-01 at 10:26 -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > On Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 12:21 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > But that's not the default and you'll have problems when linking with > > existing libraries on the machine, that use a 64-bit long double... > > Fine, we'll make it the defa

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Wednesday, June 1, 2005, at 12:21 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: But that's not the default and you'll have problems when linking with existing libraries on the machine, that use a 64-bit long double... Fine, we'll make it the default and recompile all your libraries for you... give me a seco

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2005-06-01 00:58:25 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> #include >> #include >> >> long double one = 1.0; >> long double one_plus_eps; >> >> int >> main (void) >> { >> long double one_plus_eps; >> >> one_plus_eps = one + LDBL_EPSILON; >> asse

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-06-01 15:29:37 +0930, Alan Modra wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:53:05PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > Under the 32-bit version, there's no extended precision. > > No. powerpc-linux has 128-bit IEEE soft-float long double. > > $ cat > fadd.c <<\EOF > long double fadd (long double

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 09:53:05PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-05-31 11:39:39 -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > > On May 31, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > >Well, there is no extended precision with GCC under Linux/PPC. > > > > Hum, I do wonder about even that; why do: > > > >

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-31, at 19:14, Dave Korn wrote: Speak up now, or we're going to send the firing squad. Just don't let them use x87 intrinsics to calculate the line of fire, or we'd all better run! Some remarkable time ago I was exposed to a 12 bit "RISC" CPU with two banks of 4k ferrite

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-06-01 00:58:25 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > You are mistaken. No, I don't see any problem. > #include > #include > > long double one = 1.0; > long double one_plus_eps; > > int > main (void) > { > long double one_plus_eps; > > one_plus_eps = one + LDBL_EPSILON; > assert (one !

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2005-05-31 22:11:36 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > On 2005-05-31 21:16:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > The "long double" type is required, bu

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-31 22:11:36 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 2005-05-31 21:16:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > The "long double" type is required, but it is not required to be > >> > extended precisio

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2005-05-31 21:16:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > The "long double" type is required, but it is not required to be >> > extended precision. >> >> But it can be. > > So what? You can take advantage

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-31 21:16:19 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > The "long double" type is required, but it is not required to be > > extended precision. > > But it can be. So what? > > Once you change the rounding precision, this is no longer required, > > s

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-31 11:39:39 -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > On May 31, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > >Well, there is no extended precision with GCC under Linux/PPC. > > Hum, I do wonder about even that; why do: > > 2004-02-07 Alan Modra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > * config/rs6000/t-lin

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-31 19:30:48 +0200, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > IEEE 754 is not mandated by the ISO C{90,99} standards and there are indeed > platforms where float and double are not using IEEE 754 single resp. double > precision formats. But without IEEE-754 support, the ISO C99 standard is just a big joke

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The "long double" type is required, but it is not required to be > extended precision. But it can be. > Once you change the rounding precision, this is no longer required, > since you are already working with an extension. The use of long double is

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On May 31, 2005, at 10:25 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: Well, there is no extended precision with GCC under Linux/PPC. Hum, I do wonder about even that; why do: 2004-02-07 Alan Modra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * config/rs6000/t-linux64 (LIB2FUNCS_EXTRA): Add darwin- ldouble.c. powerpc64-*-

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:20:49PM +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-05-31 17:10:58 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > "Portability" means different things to different people. There's a > > > difference between source code portability and "re

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-31 09:56:31 -0700, Mike Stump wrote: > On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 06:43 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > >No, this is not portable, since if extended precision is necessary to > >get correct results for some application, the same application run on > >PowerPC, where there is no extended p

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-31 17:10:58 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > "Portability" means different things to different people. There's a > > difference between source code portability and "result" portability. > > But making round to double the default makes it o

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-31 10:30:52 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > If you follow Standard C, you are guaranteed source code portability, in > the program compiles and produce the "same" results with any Standard C > compiler. > > When we start talking about floating-point code, however, we enter the > realm

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-31 16:07:53 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On 2005-05-31 15:33:48 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > On 2005-05-31 14:27:01 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > >> >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PR

RE: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Original Message >From: Mike Stump >Sent: 31 May 2005 17:57 > On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 06:43 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: >> No, this is not portable, since if extended precision is necessary to >> get correct results for some application, the same application run on >> PowerPC, where t

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Sun, 29 May 2005, Ross Smith wrote: On Sunday, 29 May 2005 03:17, Uros Bizjak wrote: There is no problem that Bugzilla is un-intuitive, it is far from that. The users don't fill bugreports because they are afraid of filling an invalid report or a duplicate. I strongly suspect you're mista

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Tuesday, May 31, 2005, at 06:43 AM, Vincent Lefevre wrote: No, this is not portable, since if extended precision is necessary to get correct results for some application, the same application run on PowerPC, where there is no extended precision ? News to me! Ok, who removed it? Speak up

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Andreas Schwab wrote: >>> No, this is not portable, >> >> Sure they are, since they are required since C89. >> >> You can use to find that out. That's what portability is >> about. > > "Portability" means different things to different people. The

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Andreas Schwab wrote: >> No, this is not portable, > > Sure they are, since they are required since C89. > > You can use to find that out. That's what portability is > about. "Portability" means different things to different people. There's a difference between source code portability and "res

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2005-05-31 15:33:48 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > On 2005-05-31 14:27:01 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> > But as I said on my page, this isn't m

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-31 15:33:48 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > On 2005-05-31 14:27:01 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> > But as I said on my page, this isn't much a problem since users > >> > who really need *e

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On 2005-05-31 14:27:01 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: >> Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> > But as I said on my page, this isn't much a problem since users >> > who really need *extended* precision can still set the rounding >> > precision

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-31 13:16:55 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > Vincent Lefevre writes: > > According to 5.1.2.3#13, 6.3.1.5#2 and 6.3.1.8#2, the assert should > > not fail (unless the division yields a NaN, but that would be a very > > bad implementation anyway). > > I have read the sections you mention,

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-31 14:27:01 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > But as I said on my page, this isn't much a problem since users > > who really need *extended* precision can still set the rounding > > precision to extended precision; this isn't portable, but ext

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-31 13:16:55 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote: > Vincent Lefevre writes: > > According to 5.1.2.3#13, 6.3.1.5#2 and 6.3.1.8#2, the assert should > > not fail (unless the division yields a NaN, but that would be a very > > bad implementation anyway). > > I have read the sections you mention,

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But as I said on my page, this isn't much a problem since users > who really need *extended* precision can still set the rounding > precision to extended precision; this isn't portable, but extended > precision isn't portable anyway. What about LDBL_*

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-30 22:18:14 +0200, Toon Moene wrote: > Vincent Lefevre wrote: [...] > >First there is a bug in GCC concerning casts and assignments > >(see ISO/IEC 9899: 5.1.2.3#13, 6.3.1.5#2 and 6.3.1.8#2). > > > >But even this were fixed, many users would still complain. > >That's why I think that the

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Vincent Lefevre writes: > On 2005-05-30 16:12:07 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > > Haren Visavadia wrote: > > >--- Robert Dewar wrote: > > > > >I would expect the seem behaviour for both cases. > > > > why? You have some inaccurate model of computation, > > which in the absence of switches,

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-30 16:12:07 -0400, Robert Dewar wrote: > Haren Visavadia wrote: > >--- Robert Dewar wrote: > > >I would expect the seem behaviour for both cases. > > why? You have some inaccurate model of computation, > which in the absence of switches, is not guaranteed. > Floating-point semantics ar

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Toon Moene wrote: But even this were fixed, many users would still complain. That's why I think that the Linux kernel should set the CPU in double-precision mode, like some other OS's (MS Windows, *BSD) -- but this is off-topic here. It's not off-topic. In fact, Jim Wilson argued this point h

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Haren Visavadia wrote: --- Robert Dewar wrote: Haren Visavadia wrote: --- Robert Dewar wrote: I would expect the seem behaviour for both cases. why? You have some inaccurate model of computation, which in the absence of switches, is not guaranteed. Floating-point semantics are indeed tri

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Daniel Berlin wrote: On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 16:37 +1200, Ross Smith wrote: On Sunday, 29 May 2005 03:17, Uros Bizjak wrote: Is perhaps some kind of anonymous account needed (as in Slashdot's case) to encourage these users to fill bugreports? I think this is probably the real showstopper. I'll

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

> Lets try to get a copy of gcc. Firstly I see something in the top-left > marked "releases". I click on it. It doesn't mention 4.0, Fair point. This needs fixing. > and despite reasonable attempts I see no sign of code. Huh? The first paragraph on that page is "Source code for GCC releases ma

RE: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

> > Next try documentation, installation. Talks about compiling again. > Finally, at download, binaries I find what I want. Seeing as I suspect > that is the link most people want when they first visit, it should > perhaps be a little more obvious, and in the main body near the top? Your scen

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Kai Henningsen wrote: The entire GCC website (of which GCC Bugzilla is a part) could be the poster child for why developers should never be allowed to design user interfaces, especially web user interfaces. I'm sure I'll get flamed for wanting style over substance or about the proliferation of e

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Vincent Lefevre wrote: On 2005-05-29 18:19:19 +0300, Michael Veksler wrote: If more than 50 people report it, independently, as a bug then it sure is a bug. You might argue whether technically it is a bug, but from user's perspective it is a bug (and you have over 50 duplicates as an evidence)

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

--- Robert Dewar wrote: > Haren Visavadia wrote: > > --- Robert Dewar wrote: > > > I would expect the seem behaviour for both cases. > > why? You have some inaccurate model of computation, > which in the absence of switches, is not guaranteed. > Floating-point semantics are indeed tricky. Why ar

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Haren Visavadia wrote: --- Robert Dewar wrote: I would expect the seem behaviour for both cases. why? You have some inaccurate model of computation, which in the absence of switches, is not guaranteed. Floating-point semantics are indeed tricky. test-case.c cause an assertion failure with

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

--- Robert Dewar wrote: > And so? Why would you expect this particular example > to give an assertion error. I would not expect an > assert error here. In unoptimized mode, you > certainly > do not expect it, and in optimized mode, I would > expect the register tracker to know that a and x are > in

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Haren Visavadia wrote: test.c: #include #include volatile float x = 3; int main() { float a = 1 / x; x = a; assert(a == x); printf("a has value of %g \n",a); printf("x has value of %g \n",x); assert((int)a == 0); assert((int)x == 0);

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

--- Daniel Berlin wrote: > > Let's take a duplicate of 323, 21809 > > > Compiling the code there with icc gives us: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> icc icca.c > icca.c(7): warning #1572: floating-point equality > and inequality > comparisons are unreliable > assert(a == x); > ^ > > ./[EMAIL P

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 12:50 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Unfortunately, this is not 100% correct. Recently I have filed several > > duplicates, *after* searching Bugzilla. > > That is not a problem. Bugmasters are there exactly for that. We realiz

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 16:37 +1200, Ross Smith wrote: > On Sunday, 29 May 2005 03:17, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > > > There is no problem that Bugzilla is un-intuitive, it is far from > > that. The users don't fill bugreports because they are afraid of > > filling an invalid report or a duplicate. > > I

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 13:22 +0300, Michael Veksler wrote: > > > > > > Haren Visavadia wrote on 29/05/2005 10:51:00: > > > > You can search Bugzilla as well, so you do not fill in > > duplicate bug report. > > Unfortunately, this is not 100% correct. Recently I have filed several > duplicates,

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 18:19 +0300, Michael Veksler wrote: > > > > > > "Giovanni Bajo wrote on 29/05/2005 13:54:39: > > > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Perhaps because GCC developers think that GCC isn't buggy when the > > > processor doesn't do the job for them? (I'm th

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 00:52 +0200, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > On 2005-05-28 17:17:32 +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > At this point, I wonder what is wrong with Bugzilla, that those > > programmers don't fill a proper bug report. If there is a problem with > > GCC, that is so annoying to somebody, I t

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

> > MfG Kai > > OK, then let me explain it to you. The problem with the GCC Bugzilla > reporting system is that it's a system that only other developers can > tolerate, let alone love. You probably feel this way about all Bugzilla's then, since they are all the same except for the really large o

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 30/05/2005 06:41:54: > On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 12:50 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > > Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > 3. Nontrivial search of GCC Bugzilla are, sometimes, > > >extremely slow (over a minute). > > > > 3 could be

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William Beebe) wrote on 29.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 29 May 2005 11:37:00 +0200, Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Robert Ladd) wrote on 28.05.05 > > > in In my experience, people don't file Bugzilla reports because it feels > > >

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

On 2005-05-29 19:22:57 +0200, Marc Espie wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > > http://csdl.computer.org/dl/mags/co/2005/05/r5091.pdf > > "An Open Question to Developers of Numerical Software", by > > W. Kahan and D. Zuras > > Doesn't look publically accessible from my machine..

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-29 18:19:19 +0300, Michael Veksler wrote: > If more than 50 people report it, independently, as a bug then it > sure is a bug. You might argue whether technically it is a bug, but > from user's perspective it is a bug (and you have over 50 duplicates > as an evidence). As such it has to

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-29 13:22:55 +0300, Michael Veksler wrote: > Two examples come in mind: > 1. Non conformance of x86 to the standard FP due to >its extra precision. Wrong. The IEEE-754 standard allows extended precision. >This includes different results between -O2 and -O0 even with >-fsave-

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-29 23:59:39 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: > On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 18:19 +0300, Michael Veksler wrote: > > If more than 50 people report it, independently, as a bug then it > > sure is a bug. > > Which is why it's still open! It isn't (it was marked as INVALID). > The problem with 323 is

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-30 00:31:44 -0400, Daniel Berlin wrote: [http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=21809] > Compiling the code there with icc gives us: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~> icc icca.c > icca.c(7): warning #1572: floating-point equality and inequality > comparisons are unreliable > assert(a ==

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 07:59 +0300, Michael Veksler wrote: > > > > > > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 30/05/2005 06:41:54: > > > On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 12:50 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > > > Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > 3. Nontrivial search of GCC Bugzil

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 07:59 +0300, Michael Veksler wrote: > > > > > > Daniel Berlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 30/05/2005 06:41:54: > > > On Sun, 2005-05-29 at 12:50 +0200, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > > > Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > 3. Nontrivial search of GCC Bugzil

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 01:22:55PM +0300, Michael Veksler wrote: > Haren Visavadia wrote on 29/05/2005 10:51:00: > > > > You can search Bugzilla as well, so you do not fill in > > duplicate bug report. > > Unfortunately, this is not 100% correct. Recently I have filed several > duplicates, *after*

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

--- "Joseph S. Myers" wrote: > On Sun, 29 May 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > > > You are mistaken, we think GCC isn't buggy about > 323 because the C/C++ > > standards do not tell us to do better than this. > If you have higher > > expectations about floating point and C/C++, you > should file a bu

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Sun, 29 May 2005, Giovanni Bajo wrote: > You are mistaken, we think GCC isn't buggy about 323 because the C/C++ > standards do not tell us to do better than this. If you have higher > expectations about floating point and C/C++, you should file a bugreport > against the C/C++ standards. This i

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 29 May 2005 11:37:00 +0200, Kai Henningsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Robert Ladd) wrote on 28.05.05 in > > In my experience, people don't file Bugzilla reports because it feels > > impersonal and unresponsive. The form is not very user-friendly (as in > > friendly t

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Scott Robert Ladd) wrote on 28.05.05 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Uros Bizjak wrote: > > At this point, I wonder what is wrong with Bugzilla, that those > > programmers don't fill a proper bug report. > > In my experience, people don't file Bugzilla reports because it feels > impe

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you write: > http://csdl.computer.org/dl/mags/co/2005/05/r5091.pdf > "An Open Question to Developers of Numerical Software", by > W. Kahan and D. Zuras Doesn't look publically accessible from my machine...

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Giovanni Bajo wrote on 29/05/2005 13:50:59: > Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > [2] GCC could implement a better error message. > > This is a bug, too. You can file a PR in Bugzilla explictly asking for a more > informative error message. > PR 21808 Michael

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

"Giovanni Bajo wrote on 29/05/2005 13:54:39: > Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Perhaps because GCC developers think that GCC isn't buggy when the > > processor doesn't do the job for them? (I'm thinking of bug 323.) > > > You are mistaken, we think GCC isn't buggy about 323

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

--- Michael Veksler wrote: > Unfortunately, this is not 100% correct. Recently I > have filed several > duplicates, *after* searching Bugzilla. > 1. There are too many ways to phrase a title, and > too many >times I search for wrong words. > > 2. The same bug may have several different user >

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> At this point, I wonder what is wrong with Bugzilla, that those >> programmers don't fill a proper bug report. If there is a problem >> with GCC, that is so annoying to somebody, I think that at least >> developers could be informed about it via their

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Michael Veksler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Unfortunately, this is not 100% correct. Recently I have filed several > duplicates, *after* searching Bugzilla. That is not a problem. Bugmasters are there exactly for that. We realize that finding duplicates can be very hard (in fact, sometimes dupli

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Haren Visavadia wrote on 29/05/2005 10:51:00: > > You can search Bugzilla as well, so you do not fill in > duplicate bug report. Unfortunately, this is not 100% correct. Recently I have filed several duplicates, *after* searching Bugzilla. 1. There are too many ways to phrase a title, and to

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

--- Uros Bizjak wrote: > At this point, I wonder what is wrong with Bugzilla, > that those > programmers don't fill a proper bug report. If there > is a problem with > GCC, that is so annoying to somebody, I think that > at least developers > could be informed about it via their standard > chan

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Joe Buck wrote: It also helps assure that the bug filer is a real person. If Bugzilla provided an anonymous way to file Bugzilla reports, we'd probably have spammers filling the bug database with ads for penis enlargement. RESOLVED: WORKSFORME --de.

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Sun, May 29, 2005 at 04:37:18PM +1200, Ross Smith wrote: > Whenever I see something like "we need a valid email address" on a > corporate web site, I always take it for granted that it's because they > want to spam me. In this case, the GCC developers really do intend to use your email addres

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Sunday, 29 May 2005 03:17, Uros Bizjak wrote: > > There is no problem that Bugzilla is un-intuitive, it is far from > that. The users don't fill bugreports because they are afraid of > filling an invalid report or a duplicate. I strongly suspect you're mistaken about the reason. > Is perhaps s

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

William Beebe wrote: > For example, whenever I feel the temperature rising a bit > too high, I just wonder over to the lkml and lurk awhile until I > realize once more what wonderfully sainted individuals the gcc > developers are. With the departure of Larry McVoy and BitKeeper, LKML is going to b

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 2005-05-28 17:17:32 +0200, Uros Bizjak wrote: > At this point, I wonder what is wrong with Bugzilla, that those > programmers don't fill a proper bug report. If there is a problem with > GCC, that is so annoying to somebody, I think that at least developers > could be informed about it via th

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On 5/28/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brainstorming there may be, but certain folk in the GCC community simply > like being annoying, perhaps to feed their own sense of self-importance. > It is quite possible to disagree with someone without be disagreeable, > as exemplified b

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

On Sat, 2005-05-28 at 13:09 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Uros Bizjak wrote: > > At this point, I wonder what is wrong with Bugzilla, that those > > programmers don't fill a proper bug report. > > In my experience, people don't file Bugzilla reports because it feels > impersonal and unrespons

Re: What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Uros Bizjak wrote: > At this point, I wonder what is wrong with Bugzilla, that those > programmers don't fill a proper bug report. In my experience, people don't file Bugzilla reports because it feels impersonal and unresponsive. The form is not very user-friendly (as in friendly to users of GCC,

What is wrong with Bugzilla? [Was: Re: GCC and Floating-Point]

Hello Scott! I do know this: Many, many scientific and mathematical programmers find GCC frustrating and annoying, and most of those folk know far more about numbers than I do. I wish more of these people would feel comfortable posting to the GCC list, rather than sending private e-mails to my i

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

On Sat, 28 May 2005, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > The separation of glibc and GCC leads to many problems not faced by > commercial compilers; not only can a commercial compiler focus on a > single platform, it also ships a C library as an integral part of the > compiler package. Thus a commercial co

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

On Sat, 28 May 2005, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Toon Moene wrote: > > Good Luck :-) > > > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-08/msg00368.html > > > > (it's only four years ago - I can also show you my contributions in this > > thread in 1999, i.e., the previous millennium). > > Just out of cu

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

Joseph S. Myers wrote: > They didn't fail altogether; -ffast-math was split into multiple > options (-funsafe-math-optimizations -fno-trapping-math etc.) in > March 2001, following an analysis of everything that checked > flag_fast_math >

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

Toon Moene wrote: > Good Luck :-) > > http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2001-08/msg00368.html > > (it's only four years ago - I can also show you my contributions in this > thread in 1999, i.e., the previous millennium). Just out of curiosity, why did previous efforts fail in this regard? Was it sim

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote: On Friday 27 May 2005 13:51, Vincent Lefevre wrote: So, yes, -ffast-math by default would really be a bad idea and would make gcc much worse than other compilers. Thanks for the tests. I had no idea GCCs fast-math was that different from other compilers. May

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

> "Scott" == Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Scott> Paul Koning wrote: Allan> Maybe the real goal like other have mentioned should be to Allan> divide the -ffast-math into multiple switches. >> Yes, and document them so both users and implementers can tell >> what they mean,

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

Richard Guenther wrote: > On 5/27/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>I can post a suggested set of switches and their meanings? We could >>actually document what the switches do *before* implementing them. > > Well, as I said before, actually enumerating the transformations we > cu

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

On 5/27/05, Scott Robert Ladd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Paul Koning wrote: > > Allan> Maybe the real goal like other have mentioned should be to > > Allan> divide the -ffast-math into multiple switches. > > > > Yes, and document them so both users and implementers can tell what > > they mean,

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

Paul Koning wrote: > Allan> Maybe the real goal like other have mentioned should be to > Allan> divide the -ffast-math into multiple switches. > > Yes, and document them so both users and implementers can tell what > they mean, which is not currently the case. I'm more than willing to do this,

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

> "Allan" == Allan Sandfeld Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Allan> Maybe the real goal like other have mentioned should be to Allan> divide the -ffast-math into multiple switches. Yes, and document them so both users and implementers can tell what they mean, which is not currently the ca

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

On Friday 27 May 2005 13:51, Vincent Lefevre wrote: > So, yes, -ffast-math by default would really be a bad idea and would > make gcc much worse than other compilers. > Thanks for the tests. I had no idea GCCs fast-math was that different from other compilers. Maybe the real goal like other hav

Re: GCC and Floating-Point

On 2005-05-27 07:58:28 -0400, Scott Robert Ladd wrote: > Vincent Lefevre wrote: > > So, yes, -ffast-math by default would really be a bad idea and would > > make gcc much worse than other compilers. > > Who has advocated making -ffast-math the default? I certainly haven't. Allan Sandfeld Jensen h

  1   2   >