This is the mail archive of the
gsl-discuss@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GSL project.
Re: Tru64, egcs, and optimization
- To: Steve ROBBINS <stever at bic dot mni dot mcgill dot ca>
- Subject: Re: Tru64, egcs, and optimization
- From: Brian Gough <bjg at network-theory dot co dot uk>
- Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 21:11:39 +0100 (BST)
- Cc: GSL Discussion List <gsl-discuss at sourceware dot cygnus dot com>
- References: <Pine.SGI.3.96.1000527220214.12602E-100000@bottom>
That is good to know. GSL might make a good compiler test, if nothing
else ;-)
I would be interested to hear from anyone on the list who is familiar
with the Vegas algorithm and can explain why monte/vegas.c does not
integrate the function f2() properly with double-precision rounding,
but does work in extended-precision.
Steve ROBBINS writes:
> Hullo,
>
> A while back, I reported some `make check' failures in gsl/siman under
> `Tru64' unix on an alpha machine. Later, I reported that foregoing
> optimization generated code that passed the tests. But that was using an
> install of egcs from a year back. I speculated that a newer GCC might
> work right. Indeed, it does.
>
> I have just compiled GSL using GCC 2.95.2, WITH -O2 optimization,
> and it PASSES all `siman' tests that used to fail. In fact, it
> passes all tests except
>
> FAIL: vegas(f2), dim=9, err=0.0003, chisq=0.6418
> (0.49968100184661118 observed vs 1 expected)
>
> (which was already known).
>
>
> In summary:
>
> On my "Digital UNIX V4.0F (Rev. 1229)" machine, with an alpha processor,
> compiling with default (-O2) optimization using egcs-2.91.66 produced code
> that fails siman/test. Omitting the optimization flag completely produces
> code that passes the test. I did not try dropping back to `-O1'.
>
> On the same platform, gcc 2.95.2 produced code that passes siman/test,
> using the default `-O2' optimization.
>
> -smr
>
>