Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 10:10:59 -0400 From: Jon Lido <jlido@goof.com> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: gcc/libm floating-point bug? Message-ID: <200305221010.59718.jlido@goof.com> In-Reply-To: <20030522011014.GC27806@dragon.nuxi.com> References: <200305201025.30296.jlido@goof.com> <200305201512.27174.jlido@goof.com> <20030522011014.GC27806@dragon.nuxi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wednesday 21 May 2003 09:10 pm, David O'Brien wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 03:12:27PM -0400, Jon Lido wrote: > > Yes, this was the problem. I rebuilt world with -march=pentium3 and that > > did the trick. > > Honest question of you -- I'll assume you're subscribed to > freebsd-current@. How have you missed all the warnings from myself and > others not to trust the -march=pentium4 optimizations? I honestly want > to know so we can figure out a better way of getting the word out. I missed it in the volume of email on freebsd-current. When I started using -current almost two weeks ago now, I browsed about a month's worth of the mailing list archives. I searched on gcc and libm in the list archives, but I didn't really connect the rambling discussions with the problem I was seeing. I admit that, in hindsight, it should have been pretty obvious. > > I'm not sure how CPUTYPE gets handled, but perhaps p4 should expand to > > -march=pentium3, if possible. > > I feel some will screem if we take away the ability to use > -march=pentium4 in places they know for sure will work. Unix is about > mechanisms, not policy. Well, we've got a compiler here with a broken mechanism. Deciding whether or not to act on it sounds like a policy decision to me. I just hope 5.1 doesn't get shipped with such an easy way to break stuff. -Jon
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200305221010.59718.jlido>