https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #24 from William Bader ---
Jakub was right. I didn't understand what he meant at first. Sorry about that.
I can confirm `gcc -m32 -O9 -fexcess-precision=standard gcc-bug1-init.c` on the
original example works correctly for me.
If I
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #18 from William Bader ---
Created attachment 50405
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50405&action=edit
the example program with the binary string constant replaced
Thanks for posting it. Your copy of the example C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #16 from William Bader ---
Is your pr99621-2.c somewhere that I can look at it?
I tried downloading all of the attachments, and it all works for me, on my
Fedora 32 laptop and on a CentOS 6 test server.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #14 from William Bader ---
>It seems you attached a different file then:
Sorry. I was testing how the 9 result came out, and I put in a small file. I've
been up all night. It is 9:30am my time.
This is the real file. It looks like i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #12 from William Bader ---
>I modified the file to:
Sorry about that. I hadn't originally intended to post that file, and I forgot
to clean it up.
>len 9, unknown bad
That means that the data file isn't valid. I posted a binary fil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #10 from William Bader ---
The program before creduce has debug code. Setting the variable to print the
debug code makes the program work. Usually for something like this, I would put
in debug code and see where the good and bad versi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #8 from William Bader ---
Created attachment 50404
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50404&action=edit
example program before creduce
This is the example that I cut from a much larger module. The problematic area
i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #7 from William Bader ---
>Are you sure this just isn't an excess precision problem in all the floating
>point calculations?
I am pretty sure that it isn't a precision problem because the original program
is parsing numbers from po
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #5 from William Bader ---
`gcc -S -m32 -O2 bfinal-format.c` with Fedora 32 gcc 10.2.1 gives a section
similar to one in my first comment. In particular, it calls fucomi "floating
unordered compare of st(0) and st(i)" and then fstp "fl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
--- Comment #1 from William Bader ---
Created attachment 50403
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=50403&action=edit
Data file that the test program reads.
postscript test file compressed with bzip2.
It needs to be uncompresses.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=99621
Bug ID: 99621
Summary: [5-11 REGRESSION] [bisected to
058e97ecf33ad0dfd926b3876a4bcf59ac9556ff] regression
with -m32 -O1 -fcaller-saves -fexpensive-optimizations
Product: gc
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89965
--- Comment #18 from William Bader ---
I did a bisection for the bug from my previous comment (which is still present
in the current gcc 11 in master):
058e97ecf33ad0dfd926b3876a4bcf59ac9556ff is the first bad commit
commit 058e97ecf33ad0dfd926b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89965
William Bader changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||williambader at hotmail dot com
--- Comm
13 matches
Mail list logo
