Web lists-archives.com

Re: [Mingw-users] msvcrt printf bug

On 20/01/17 01:53, Emanuel Falkenauer wrote:
> Hi Peter,
> Emanuel - The one thing I cannot grasp is that you have built s/w with a
> range of toolchains, but you are very focussed on obtaining exactly the
> same numerical answers - seemingly to the level of false precision - for
> each build.
> ...snip
>> I am struggling to see the reason for this, especially as
>> you are talking about a stochastic (GA) algorithm. Why is this such a
>> big issue for you? You mentioned you work in aerospace. Is this some
>> sort of ultra safety conscious aerospace certification thing?
> No - we optimize the scheduling of processes, not the internals of the
> processes themselves. There are two reasons for my obsession with
> consistency across compilers, as I explained a few posts back:
> (1) we edit and _debug_ in Borland, for the simple reason that the
> environment is frankly very good, so our productivity is excellent(*)...
> but we actually release (ship) MinGW builds, because they are
> dramatically faster than Borland's. Now in order to debug in Borland a
> glitch spotted in our MinGW releases, we must be able to reproduce
> exactly the same glitch in the former. On the other hand, given the
> nature of what we do (GAs), and the fact that some glitches don't show
> up before hours of computation... well I think you've got it already
> (2) I found that it really is an excellent QC practice to make sure the
> two builds behave exactly the same, because each time it was NOT the
> case, there was a bug somewhere. Each and every time, no exceptions.
> (*) Before sending me a barrage of complaints, please be aware that I do
> have NetBeans... but (1) I find its editor simply not on par with
> Borland's, and (2) trying to attach our DLL to debug, the list of PIDs
> was just empty (if some of you has an advice on how to solve that, I
> would be grateful - because the raw gdb is really painful).
> All the best,
> Emanuel
Emanuel - Thanks for clarifying. I now understand.

At the risk of getting flamed by the command line warriors on this list, 
have you looked at the CodeBlocks or CodeLite IDEs for running MinGW 
directly?  Both have excellent graphical interfaces to gdb. (In fact, I 
have no idea how to run gdb from the command line! Never done it...) 
Seems working solely with mingw will save you a lot of the QC grief you 
seem to be having now.

(In passing, a similar problem seems to present very frequently with 
folks writing/debgugging/testing programs in Matlab and then porting to 
C(++) for the production code. The porting seems to consume a massive 
amount of programmer time.)


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:
Also: mailto:mingw-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe