Date: Sat, 13 May 2000 20:05:13 -0400 From: Eric Ogren <eogren@earthlink.net> To: Ken Seggerman <suleyman@echonyc.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: gcc's bad results on Celeron 500 running 3.3 RELEASE Message-ID: <20000513200513.C11952@earthlink.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0005131428510.1792-100000@echonyc.com>; from suleyman@echonyc.com on Sat, May 13, 2000 at 02:44:19PM -0400 References: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0005131428510.1792-100000@echonyc.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
What flags are you giving to GCC? If you're one of those people who gives 10,000 optimization options when compiling your code, this is probably the problem. If you are doing lots of optimizations, try and compile your program with -O (and whatever -Woptions you use), and see if that solves the problem. Eric On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 02:44:19PM -0400, Ken Seggerman wrote: > Greetings: > > I am running FreeBSD 3.3 RELEASE on a brand new Intel Celeron 500 mhz > PC, as well on a much older Pentium 133 mhz PC. > > When compiling and running a mathematically intensive program in C on > the Celeron 500 using both the gcc 2.7.2.3 that came with Release 3.3, > and with the gcc 2.95.2 that I installed, I consistently get wrong > results (I am #including <math.h> and linking in the math library with > -lm). > > Compiling the same code in -verbose mode on the old 133 Pentium gives > identical (except for the names of the temporary files in /var/tmp) > verbose output to stderr, and when the binary is run it gives correct > results. > > Compiling and running the same code on the three remote multi-user > machines (two SPARCS and a PC running Solaris) under various releases > of gcc where I have shell access and compilation privileges, yields > correct results. > > Booting the Celeron 500 under Windows NT and compiling and running the > code with a commercial (MSVC 6.0) compiler gives me correct results. > > Running a program of a similar nature (xephem 4.28) pre-compiled as a > package for FreeBSD 3.1 on the two machines gives me identical (and > correct) results. > > Is this a gcc problem, or a FreeBSD 3.3 problem? > > Is there anything I can do about it? > > Is it fixed in FreeBSD 4.0 Release? > > > Thanks, > > Ken Seggerman > > ken_seggerman@suleyman.com > > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000513200513.C11952>