Re: [Mingw-users] msvcrt printf bug
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 16:20:12 +0800
- From: KHMan <keinhong@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Mingw-users] msvcrt printf bug
On 1/20/2017 12:07 PM, Emanuel Falkenauer wrote:
> Hi KHMan,
> Thank you for your well documented explanation - it shows how it could
> be that my "stubbornness" is actually grounded in reality. :-) Gosh,
> good Lord I never even knew about -Ofast! :-D
> And I guess kudos also to the IEEE: these "standards bodies" are often
> seen as stifling creativity, but in this case they're just invaluable:
> I'd hate our clients reporting different results just because they'd be
> running on AMDs!
> All the best,
> P.S. Your "(a+b != b+a) for floating point" example is excellent: that's
> indeed the kind of "gymnastics" we often do to manage the floats'
> inherent IMprecision.
My memory failed me and I think I should correct the above. IIRC I
tripped on a+(b+c) != (a+b)+c. I remembered well that I blundered,
but did not recall correctly what I blundered on... It popped out
of my slow neurons about an hour after I posted -- fast memory
retrieval is not reliable. I'm not sure though what the IEEE
standards say about a+b and b+a equivalence, if any.
In any case, Agner Fog is a much better point of reference for
these sort of things...
> On 20-Jan-17 04:34, KHMan wrote:
>> On 1/20/2017 9:53 AM, Emanuel Falkenauer wrote:
>>> On 19-Jan-17 12:35, Peter Rockett wrote:
>>> [snip snip]
>>>> I think everybody (apart maybe from the OP) agrees how floating point
>>>> numbers behave. Keith makes a good point about rounding. Can I toss in
>>>> another feature that changing the compiler optimisation level often
>>>> reorders instructions meaning that rounding errors accumulate in
>>>> different ways. So changing the optimisation level often slightly
>>>> changes the numerical answers. :-\
>>> I agree that it could well (or even should?) be the case... but it's not
>>> in my case - to my own pleasant surprise.
>>> I can build with -O3 to get the most juice for releases, or with -O0 to
>>> debug... my logs are still the same (spare for actual bugs). I even
>>> compile with -mtune=native -march=native -mpopcnt -mmmx -mssse3 -msse4.2
>>> (native: I'm on Xeons), although I doubt very much the Borland compiler
>>> knows anything about those optimizations... and yet the latter's logs
>>> are still identical to MinGW's.
>>> Honestly it beats me as well... but I'm sure glad it's the case! :-)
>> Since nobody has filled this in...
>> In the past it has been pointed out to me that gcc by default
>> respects the possibility that (a+b != b+a) for floating point, so
>> it does not attempt those kinds of reordering. So one ought to get
>> consistent results from the FPU.
>> By default -O[0123s] is still math-strict . -Ofast, a host of
>> other math options and some CPU-specific options break strictness
>> for more speed. If -O[0123s] misbehaves, I guess it should be
>> investigated as a potential bug.
>> Agner Fog's manual 1, section 8  gives a table of optimizations
>> performed, including floating point optimizations and many
>> compilers including gcc and Borland. So it is likely that gcc did
>> all optimizations while being math-strict.
>>  https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Optimize-Options.html
>>  http://www.agner.org/optimize/
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, SlashDot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
MinGW-users mailing list
This list observes the Etiquette found at
We ask that you be polite and do the same. Disregard for the list etiquette may cause your account to be moderated.
You may change your MinGW Account Options or unsubscribe at: