https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=103088
--- Comment #7 from Aldy Hernandez <aldyh at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Could someone post the relevant configury bits used for the ppc64le case. For example, I have: OPTIMIZE = -O3 -m64 -mcpu=power9 -ffast-math -funroll-loops -fpeel-loops -fvect-cost-model -mpopcntd -mrecip=rsqrt My inherited config file also has the following for the 500.perlbench test: EXTRA_OPTIMIZE = -fno-strict-aliasing -fno-unsafe-math-optimizations^M I noticed as per comment #2, that seurer's doesn't add -fno-unsafe-math-optimizations. Also, what runcpu flags are used? I used: runcpu --config=myconfig -a validate --iterations=1 --ignore-errors --rebuild --noreportable -i test --tune=base 500.perlbench ...which fails in an altogether different manner: **************************************** Contents of test.err **************************************** op/sprintf2.t not ok 1457 - negative zero op/sprintf2.t| # Failed test 1457 - negative zero at op/sprintf2.t line 701 op/sprintf2.t| # got "0x0p+0" op/sprintf2.t| # expected "-0x0p+0" op/sprintf2.t not ok 1458 - negative zero op/sprintf2.t| # Failed test 1458 - negative zero at op/sprintf2.t line 702 op/sprintf2.t| # got "+0x0p+0" op/sprintf2.t| # expected "-0x0p+0" op/sprintf2.t not ok 1459 - negative zero op/sprintf2.t| # Failed test 1459 - negative zero at op/sprintf2.t line 703 op/sprintf2.t| # got "0x0.0000000000000p+0" op/sprintf2.t| # expected "-0x0.0000000000000p+0" Failed 1 test out of 317, 99.68% okay. Is the above what y'all are getting, or is the "Minimum abstol: nan" message totally different?
