Somewhere in the E.U., le 09/06/2005 Bonjour In article <989aceac0506070535775585f3@mail.gmail.com>, Caleb Epstein <caleb.epstein@gmail.com> wrote:
These test failures all seem to stem from problems with std::exp (long double) and perhaps some other math functions using long double on gcc. Does this smell like a gcc bug, or is there something wrong with the tests?
gcc-4_0-darwin: http://tinyurl.com/8tts6 http://tinyurl.com/atzbx
gcc-windows: http://tinyurl.com/dwmdk http://tinyurl.com/9to33
gcc-3_4_3-sunos: http://tinyurl.com/8zvpz http://tinyurl.com/bx6mt
For gcc-4_0-darwin and gcc-3_4_3-sunos at least, I strongly suspect a libstdc++ bug (or severe QOI issue), w.r.t. "long double" on 64 bits architectures. Jonathan Wakely is investigating that possibility (I sent him a much shorter test case demonstrating the problem). If necessary, I will turn off the tests for "long double" before the 1.33 release. For gcc-windows things are not as clear, as apparently this is a 32 bits architecture and not a 64 bits one. There is the possibility that "long double" may actually be (slightly) bigger than "double" on that platform (I seem to remember things along that line when I worked on NT a great while back), and that we are falling into the same kind of trouble. Merci Hubert