From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-347423-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 25190 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2011 01:20:00 -0000
Received: (qmail 25178 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Feb 2011 01:19:59 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,TW_JR
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Feb 2011 01:19:54 +0000
From: "jrt at worldlinc dot net" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/47692] Numeric inaccuracy reported in testing lapack-3.3.0 BLAS module
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: fortran
X-Bugzilla-Keywords:
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jrt at worldlinc dot net
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-47692-4-KaFWb3b8a5@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-47692-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-47692-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2011 02:45:00 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2011-02/txt/msg01889.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47692

--- Comment #11 from John T <jrt at worldlinc dot net> 2011-02-16 01:19:36 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 07:56:05PM +0000, jrt at worldlinc dot net wrote:
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47692
> > 
> > --- Comment #6 from John T <jrt at worldlinc dot net> 2011-02-11 19:56:02 UTC ---
> > I built the reference BLAS included with Lapack from source. I just got the
> > results from blas_testing using gcc-4.4.5 and results good again. I don't know
> > where to find the raw results from lapack and blas testing. Should there be an
> > ieee flag in compiler settings? Any flags on how to round?
> > 
> > My flags were:
> > #
> > FORTRAN  = gfortran -fimplicit-none -g
> > OPTS     = -O3
> > DRVOPTS  = $(OPTS)
> > NOOPT    = -g -O0
> > LOADER   = gfortran -g
> > LOADOPTS =
> > 
> 
> I just built the blas included with lapack-3.3.0 with
> -O3 of x86_64-*-freebsd with 4.5.3 and 4.6.0 (a fews
> old version).  There were no errors.  Can you rebuild
> with -O and see if you have problems?  If you have
> problems with -O, can you then use -O0 -ffloat-store?

I haven't been able to try these suggestions because I'm finding a different
problem, linking. The GCC programs didn't respond well to an attempt to
reconfigure the existing build so I rebuilt for /usr/local and used a colorgcc
trick to switch between 4.4.5 and the test version. But the build for
/usr/local tried to link with /usr/lib/libgfortran.so.3 and the first set of
test programs (in lapack-3.3.0/INSTALL) wouldn't run. I don't see anything in
the makefiles that would confuse a linker.