Boost logo

Boost :

From: Markus Schöpflin (markus.schoepflin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-03 11:39:44

Vladimir Prus wrote:

> Markus,
> there's a failure of math/complex_test on Tru64:
> I can't make much of it, so I'd suspect that there's some "make floating point
> more accurate" option that's passed in V1, and not passed in V2.
> Unfortunately, CVS does not contain tru64cxx71-006 toolset, so I can't compare
> the command lines myself.
> Any change you'll run the test with V1 and V2 (with -a -n, to get just commnad
> lines), compare the compile command lines and tell me if there are any
> significant differences, or just send the command lines to me?

I added the needed flag to the my local configuration just today. It's
-ieee and needed to enforce IEEE conforming math operations. It's never
been part of the basic toolset because usually the IEEE conformance of the
CPU itself is good enough, and using this flags may incur a significant
performance penalty. So I would recommend not to add it to the basic toolset.

Strictly speaking it should be there for all math relevant boost libraries
which depend on IEEE conforming math, but I always thoughr that anyone
using this libraries on Alpha CPUs will know about the pitfalls.

The tests passes locally with my current V2 toolset, and there will be a
fresh non-incremental regression run over the weekend, therefore it should
show up green soon.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at