------- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-01-26 09:22 ------- I have just run a Lapack test on ia64-unknown-linux-gnu, under the following conditions:
I used the 20050123 snapshot with wide complex scaling, i.e. the fix for PR 19486 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-complex.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.15&r2=2.16 and the fix for PR 19609 http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/gcc/gcc/tree-complex.c.diff?cvsroot=gcc&r1=2.17&r2=2.18 applied. I then set int flag_complex_divide_method = 1 in toplev.c, and bootstrapped. For Lapack, I used 3.0 from netlib with all files from ftp://www.netlib.org/lapack/patch.tar.gz overwritten. Now here are the results: CST: 1 out of 4662 tests failed to pass the threshold CST drivers: 1 out of 11664 tests failed to pass the threshold CST: 1 out of 4662 tests failed to pass the threshold CST drivers: 1 out of 11664 tests failed to pass the threshold CST drivers: 1 out of 11664 tests failed to pass the threshold DXV drivers: 200 out of 5000 tests failed to pass the threshold SXV drivers: 37 out of 5000 tests failed to pass the threshold SST: 1 out of 4662 tests failed to pass the threshold SST drivers: 1 out of 14256 tests failed to pass the threshold ZXV drivers: 24 out of 5000 tests failed to pass the threshold This is BRILLIANT. If you compare this with comment #12, the results are identical to the g77 results. There is no g77 regression at -O0 any more! I think PR 18902 has just moved to critical, at least for gfortran. I'll add a comment there. I will rerun tests at -O1 and see what I can get. Thomas -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=5900
