public inbox for gcc-prs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Alberto.Ribon@cern.ch
To: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: optimization/10482: Optimized and debug binaries of same application give different results.
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 16:06:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030424155944.10233.qmail@sources.redhat.com> (raw)


>Number:         10482
>Category:       optimization
>Synopsis:       Optimized and debug binaries of same application give different results.
>Confidential:   no
>Severity:       serious
>Priority:       medium
>Responsible:    unassigned
>State:          open
>Class:          sw-bug
>Submitter-Id:   net
>Arrival-Date:   Thu Apr 24 16:06:01 UTC 2003
>Closed-Date:
>Last-Modified:
>Originator:     Alberto.Ribon@cern.ch
>Release:        gcc 3.2.2 and earlier versions (2.95.2)
>Organization:
>Environment:
Linux Red Hat 7.3
>Description:
After building the same C++ application twice,
     once using debug  -g  option
 and once with optimization ( -O  option), 
and running them at the same conditions, the results 
numerically differ while they should be exactly the same.
We verified and are confident that there are no cases of
uninitialized variables or numerical instabilities (like
nan, division by zero, etc...).
We also verified that the same exercise on Sun Solaris
system with Forte CC 5.4 compiler (and earlier verions)
instead generates the same output in the two cases.

We would like to know if this is a known feature of gcc
compiler, and what could be the cause in terms of optimizations done with the default level -O.
>How-To-Repeat:
The problem appears in a rather complicated simulation 
application for which we don't have an easy test case to
provide.
>Fix:

>Release-Note:
>Audit-Trail:
>Unformatted:


             reply	other threads:[~2003-04-24 16:06 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-04-24 16:06 Alberto.Ribon [this message]
2003-04-24 16:27 bangerth

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=20030424155944.10233.qmail@sources.redhat.com \
    --to=alberto.ribon@cern.ch \
    --cc=gcc-gnats@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: link
Be 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).