Paranoia flaw on pc386

[Joel Sherrill]

The compiler flags and optimizations matter a lot on x86.
There are lots of discussions when gcc is benchmarked
against icc like this one:

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2012-01/msg00238.html

But specifically, there is a discussion of gcc and paranoia
here which appears to match your report.

http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2004-03/msg01468.html

--joel

On 7/18/2013 1:30 PM, Gedare Bloom wrote:
> I think the FLAWs can be safely ignored, but may be will matter if
> your application uses floating point operations.
>
> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Ardalan Pouyabahar
> <a.pouyabahar at ece.ut.ac.ir> wrote:
>> Hello,
>> Paranoia output on rtems pc386 had 1 flaw which was this:
>>
>> Sticky bit used incorrectly or not at all.
>> TEST: lack(s) of guard digits or failure(s) to correctly round or chop
>> (noted above) count as one flaw in the final tally below
>> ERROR: Severity: FLAW:  lack(s) of guard digits or failure(s) to correctly
>> round or chop
>> (noted above) count as one flaw in the final tally below.
>> PASS: lack(s) of guard digits or failure(s) to correctly round or chop
>> (noted above) count as one flaw in the final tally below
>>
>> I've searched in rtems mailing list and google but couldn't find anything
>> useful yet. Does anyone know what it means and how can I solve it?
>> I compiled whole rtems and paranoia without optimization.
>> Thanks,
>> A.Pouyabahar
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> rtems-users mailing list
>> rtems-users at rtems.org
>> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> rtems-users mailing list
> rtems-users at rtems.org
> http://www.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/rtems-users


-- 
Joel Sherrill, Ph.D.             Director of Research & Development
joel.sherrill at OARcorp.com        On-Line Applications Research
Ask me about RTEMS: a free RTOS  Huntsville AL 35805
Support Available                (256) 722-9985