--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19619
--- Additional Comments From billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-03-02
03:56 ---
Gone away. Probably fixed by complex division algorithm change.
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25
05:02 ---
-ffloat-store make one more case fail.
Thanks for the reference. I remember it now.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19619
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25
04:09 ---
The quotes from that email really makes it sound like this "bug".
"The failures depend on the optimisation level on file chgeqz.f, independent
of the optimisation used on the rest of LAPACK, and start at -O2
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25
03:59 ---
Hmm (even though you might not remember this, google does):
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2001-05/msg00754.html
so does -ffloat-store fix the problem?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25
03:55 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> (In reply to comment #1)
> > The problem is in optimization of routine chgeqz.f
>
> Hmm, could this be like the old PR 1645? (that was reduced from the same
> routine :) ).
Never
--- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25
03:52 ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> The problem is in optimization of routine chgeqz.f
Hmm, could this be like the old PR 1645? (that was reduced from the same
routine :) ).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_
--- Additional Comments From billingd at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-01-25
03:37 ---
The problem is in optimization of routine chgeqz.f
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19619
