--- Comment #6 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2005-11-25 19:13 ---
CCing Eric since he recently had problems with ia64 fma
(http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-10/msg01036.html).
--
bonzini at gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--
--- Comment #5 from bonzini at gnu dot org 2005-11-25 19:12 ---
Another failure from glibc's tests is more severe: __DBL_MAX__ * __DBL_MAX__ -
__DBL_MAX * __DBL_MAX__ is turned into an INF rather than a NAN (as would
happen on most targets) or zero (as would happen on x87 because it comp
--- Comment #4 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-11-16 11:44
---
Marking as invalid given my previous analysis, and that the errors are all
1ulp.
--
amodra at bigpond dot net dot au changed:
What|Removed |Added
---
--- Comment #3 from amodra at bigpond dot net dot au 2005-11-16 11:42
---
I analysed one of these failures quite a while ago. The conclusion I came to
was that the errors were due to excess precision. gcc-4.1 makes more use of
multiply-accumulate instructions. You could try compiling
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.1.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24819
--- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-12 15:31 ---
Waiting for a testcase.
--
pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Co
