public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "richard.koolhans at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libfortran/58020] Code for handling IEEE exceptions Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 15:51:00 -0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-58020-4-GkystT3hfV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-58020-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58020 --- Comment #12 from richard.koolhans at gmail dot com --- Thanks for doing the test with -O3. That is what I see, also. My tests show: With -O0 everything works. With -O1 everything runs but there are some failures. With -O2 everything runs but there are some failures. With -O3 there is a crash, as noted. I searched and found a suggestion about suppressing optimization within a C code, using the gcc compiler: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2219829/how-to-prevent-gcc-optimizing-some-statements-in-c I gave my local variables the additional *volatile* attribute and that solved the optimization problem. This is preferred to requiring that -O0 be used in the compile line. That way other optimizations are not suppressed. My understanding ends there.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-01 15:51 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2013-07-29 17:05 [Bug libfortran/58020] New: " fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com 2013-07-29 19:29 ` [Bug libfortran/58020] " kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-07-29 21:03 ` fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com 2013-07-29 22:01 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu 2013-07-30 12:48 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-07-30 14:14 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-07-30 14:36 ` richard.koolhans at gmail dot com 2013-07-30 17:31 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-07-30 17:37 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu 2013-07-30 17:55 ` fkrogh#gcc at mathalacarte dot com 2013-07-31 17:27 ` richard.koolhans at gmail dot com 2013-08-01 13:00 ` dominiq at lps dot ens.fr 2013-08-01 15:51 ` richard.koolhans at gmail dot com [this message] 2013-11-05 13:56 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-11-05 14:05 ` fkrogh at mathalacarte dot com 2013-11-05 14:08 ` fkrogh at mathalacarte dot com 2013-11-05 15:52 ` burnus at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-11-05 16:12 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-11-05 16:27 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu 2013-11-05 16:37 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-11-05 17:05 ` richard.koolhans at gmail dot com 2013-11-05 17:43 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu 2013-11-06 12:28 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org 2013-11-25 0:59 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org 2014-06-07 10:19 ` fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-58020-4-GkystT3hfV@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).