* G++ 4.3.4 vs.G++ 4.5.2???
@ 2011-06-13 12:06 Jan Chludzinski
2011-06-13 16:10 ` Jonathan Wakely
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Chludzinski @ 2011-06-13 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-help
Just finished compiling some numerical code (developed using the
Borland C++ compiler) using G++ 4.3.4 (that came with Cygwin 1.7). The
answers are different from what I get using the Borland compiler
(circa 2002). I have known correct answers from some NASA code and
compare against those.
I've transitioned of late to Code::Blocks using the latest MinGW.
MinGW comes with G++ 4.5.2. I compiled using this compiler and it
once again works (I get the same answers as the NASA code).
Are there known problems with G++ 4.3.4?
BTW, the original code was infinite looping until I replaced the old style:
for (i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ..
with i declared within the routine (i.e., function) with:
for (int i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ...
---Jan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: G++ 4.3.4 vs.G++ 4.5.2???
2011-06-13 12:06 G++ 4.3.4 vs.G++ 4.5.2??? Jan Chludzinski
@ 2011-06-13 16:10 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-06-13 21:05 ` Jan Chludzinski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Wakely @ 2011-06-13 16:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Chludzinski; +Cc: gcc-help
On 13 June 2011 11:24, Jan Chludzinski wrote:
> Just finished compiling some numerical code (developed using the
> Borland C++ compiler) using G++ 4.3.4 (that came with Cygwin 1.7). The
> answers are different from what I get using the Borland compiler
> (circa 2002). I have known correct answers from some NASA code and
> compare against those.
>
> I've transitioned of late to Code::Blocks using the latest MinGW.
> MinGW comes with G++ 4.5.2. I compiled using this compiler and it
> once again works (I get the same answers as the NASA code).
>
> Are there known problems with G++ 4.3.4?
>
> BTW, the original code was infinite looping until I replaced the old style:
>
> for (i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ..
>
> with i declared within the routine (i.e., function) with:
>
> for (int i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ...
Are you using x86? Are you telling the compiler to use SSE registers
for floating point instead of the 387 registers?
Does using "-march=pentium3 -mfpmath=sse" with GCC 4.3.4 give the
expected results?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: G++ 4.3.4 vs.G++ 4.5.2???
2011-06-13 16:10 ` Jonathan Wakely
@ 2011-06-13 21:05 ` Jan Chludzinski
2011-06-14 16:00 ` Axel Freyn
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Chludzinski @ 2011-06-13 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Wakely; +Cc: gcc-help
First, I tried "-march=pentium3 -mfpmath=sse" to no avail - same wrong
answer. The is a "rigid plate" analysis for a vibration problem. The
correct answer is the plate lattice damps out at -0.414329 @ ~0.5
seconds. With G++ 4.3.4 I'm now getting: -0.43281 @ ~0.9 seconds.
Second, I'm simply compiling the source code using g++ <source-file>,
the only option "-g".
---Jan
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 June 2011 11:24, Jan Chludzinski wrote:
>> Just finished compiling some numerical code (developed using the
>> Borland C++ compiler) using G++ 4.3.4 (that came with Cygwin 1.7). The
>> answers are different from what I get using the Borland compiler
>> (circa 2002). I have known correct answers from some NASA code and
>> compare against those.
>>
>> I've transitioned of late to Code::Blocks using the latest MinGW.
>> MinGW comes with G++ 4.5.2. I compiled using this compiler and it
>> once again works (I get the same answers as the NASA code).
>>
>> Are there known problems with G++ 4.3.4?
>>
>> BTW, the original code was infinite looping until I replaced the old style:
>>
>> for (i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ..
>>
>> with i declared within the routine (i.e., function) with:
>>
>> for (int i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ...
>
> Are you using x86? Are you telling the compiler to use SSE registers
> for floating point instead of the 387 registers?
>
> Does using "-march=pentium3 -mfpmath=sse" with GCC 4.3.4 give the
> expected results?
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: G++ 4.3.4 vs.G++ 4.5.2???
2011-06-13 21:05 ` Jan Chludzinski
@ 2011-06-14 16:00 ` Axel Freyn
2011-06-14 17:03 ` Jan Chludzinski
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Axel Freyn @ 2011-06-14 16:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Chludzinski; +Cc: Jonathan Wakely, gcc-help
Hi Jan,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 03:54:51PM -0400, Jan Chludzinski wrote:
> First, I tried "-march=pentium3 -mfpmath=sse" to no avail - same wrong
> answer. The is a "rigid plate" analysis for a vibration problem. The
> correct answer is the plate lattice damps out at -0.414329 @ ~0.5
> seconds. With G++ 4.3.4 I'm now getting: -0.43281 @ ~0.9 seconds.
>
> Second, I'm simply compiling the source code using g++ <source-file>,
> the only option "-g".
>
> ---Jan
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 13 June 2011 11:24, Jan Chludzinski wrote:
> >> Just finished compiling some numerical code (developed using the
> >> Borland C++ compiler) using G++ 4.3.4 (that came with Cygwin 1.7). The
> >> answers are different from what I get using the Borland compiler
> >> (circa 2002). Â I have known correct answers from some NASA code and
> >> compare against those.
> >>
> >> I've transitioned of late to Code::Blocks using the latest MinGW.
> >> MinGW comes with G++ 4.5.2. Â I compiled using this compiler and it
> >> once again works (I get the same answers as the NASA code).
> >>
> >> Are there known problems with G++ 4.3.4?
Well, I don't know your code / library but floating point calculations
DO depend on compiler, architecture, compilation flags, optimization,...
(and the moon phase ;-)). And if a library is not written extremely
clean, it's quite easy to introduce numerical instabilities as soon as
the numerics become a bit more complex. (Like Jonathan suggested: On
x86, it's a difference whether numerics are done in the FPU or the SSE
unit -- the FPU uses internally higher precision.)
And to make things worse: floating point results MIGHT even depend on
changes you perform at other places in the code (as this might influence
the compilers optimization behaviour...)
> >>
> >> BTW, the original code was infinite looping until I replaced the old style:
> >>
> >> for (i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ..
> >>
> >> with i declared within the routine (i.e., function) with:
> >>
> >> for (int i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ...
This part is really strange however: Both should give the same behaviour.
The only reasons I can imagine without knowing the code:
- the "i" in old-style syntax was no "int", but a different (e.g.
smaller) type?
- you have a subtle bug in the code which changes the "old-style i"
from the loop (e.g. by an invalid pointer): your changed line will
generate a NEW variable "i", which is valid during the loop only and
is probably stored at another address in memory
- there is a bug in gcc
Can you supply a (small) working example which reproduces the problem?
Axel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: G++ 4.3.4 vs.G++ 4.5.2???
2011-06-14 16:00 ` Axel Freyn
@ 2011-06-14 17:03 ` Jan Chludzinski
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Jan Chludzinski @ 2011-06-14 17:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jonathan Wakely, gcc-help
I'm contracting right now and will try when I have time. Thanks, Jan
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 5:54 AM, Axel Freyn <axel-freyn@gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Jan,
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 03:54:51PM -0400, Jan Chludzinski wrote:
>> First, I tried "-march=pentium3 -mfpmath=sse" to no avail - same wrong
>> answer. The is a "rigid plate" analysis for a vibration problem. The
>> correct answer is the plate lattice damps out at -0.414329 @ ~0.5
>> seconds. With G++ 4.3.4 I'm now getting: -0.43281 @ ~0.9 seconds.
>>
>> Second, I'm simply compiling the source code using g++ <source-file>,
>> the only option "-g".
>>
>> ---Jan
>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 6:54 AM, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 13 June 2011 11:24, Jan Chludzinski wrote:
>> >> Just finished compiling some numerical code (developed using the
>> >> Borland C++ compiler) using G++ 4.3.4 (that came with Cygwin 1.7). The
>> >> answers are different from what I get using the Borland compiler
>> >> (circa 2002). I have known correct answers from some NASA code and
>> >> compare against those.
>> >>
>> >> I've transitioned of late to Code::Blocks using the latest MinGW.
>> >> MinGW comes with G++ 4.5.2. I compiled using this compiler and it
>> >> once again works (I get the same answers as the NASA code).
>> >>
>> >> Are there known problems with G++ 4.3.4?
>
> Well, I don't know your code / library but floating point calculations
> DO depend on compiler, architecture, compilation flags, optimization,...
> (and the moon phase ;-)). And if a library is not written extremely
> clean, it's quite easy to introduce numerical instabilities as soon as
> the numerics become a bit more complex. (Like Jonathan suggested: On
> x86, it's a difference whether numerics are done in the FPU or the SSE
> unit -- the FPU uses internally higher precision.)
> And to make things worse: floating point results MIGHT even depend on
> changes you perform at other places in the code (as this might influence
> the compilers optimization behaviour...)
>
>> >>
>> >> BTW, the original code was infinite looping until I replaced the old style:
>> >>
>> >> for (i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ..
>> >>
>> >> with i declared within the routine (i.e., function) with:
>> >>
>> >> for (int i=0; i<WHATEVER; i++) ...
> This part is really strange however: Both should give the same behaviour.
> The only reasons I can imagine without knowing the code:
> - the "i" in old-style syntax was no "int", but a different (e.g.
> smaller) type?
> - you have a subtle bug in the code which changes the "old-style i"
> from the loop (e.g. by an invalid pointer): your changed line will
> generate a NEW variable "i", which is valid during the loop only and
> is probably stored at another address in memory
> - there is a bug in gcc
>
> Can you supply a (small) working example which reproduces the problem?
>
> Axel
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-06-14 16:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-06-13 12:06 G++ 4.3.4 vs.G++ 4.5.2??? Jan Chludzinski
2011-06-13 16:10 ` Jonathan Wakely
2011-06-13 21:05 ` Jan Chludzinski
2011-06-14 16:00 ` Axel Freyn
2011-06-14 17:03 ` Jan Chludzinski
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).