From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1258 invoked by alias); 15 May 2003 03:06:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 1202 invoked by uid 71); 15 May 2003 03:06:01 -0000 Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 03:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030515030601.1189.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: nobody@gcc.gnu.org Cc: gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, From: Dara Hazeghi Subject: Re: optimization/10774: Problem with ``-march=pentium4 -O'' Reply-To: Dara Hazeghi X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg01747.txt.bz2 List-Id: The following reply was made to PR optimization/10774; it has been noted by GNATS. From: Dara Hazeghi To: Mikhail Teterin Cc: gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: optimization/10774: Problem with ``-march=pentium4 -O'' Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 20:02:59 -0700 (PDT) > = By "works," you mean the testcase exhibits the > correct behavior? > = > = Dara > > Yes. I also tested the original problem I had -- > FreeBSD pow(3) was > producing incorrect results, when the libm was > compiled for P4, which, > for me, led to the failure of the lcms (see > littlecms.com) selftest. > After recompiling the libm with gcc33, I can get > through the lcms' > selftest. I wonder, if the fixes can be backported > to the 3.2.x branch, > so the OS vendors can incorporate them without > jumping to the 3.3 right > away... They can be backported. However, there is nobody maintaining the gcc 3.2 branch, so these fixes will probably be localized to the various distributors. Dara __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com