From: hodder@geop.ubc.ca (philip hodder) Subject: Re: gcc 2.2.2 math lib bug??? Date: 14 Sep 1992 22:07:38 GMT
In article 24459@klaava.Helsinki.FI, torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds) writes:
> In article <1992Sep13.161713.8191@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> int177c@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Jae Won) writes:
> >
> > I found a weidness in gcc2.2.2d. It may be my silly code but I tested
> >the code with gcc compiler at uni(gcc...not sure of the version) and it worked
> >fine...well, like what I expected. The code is a edited fragment of a code
> >I am writing to do a monte carlo stuff. I use exp() function.
>
> It's more likely to be a problem with the 387-emulator: the emulator
> does *not* handle under/over-flows gracefully in its current form. The
> fix is either to get a real 387, check for underflows by hand, or fix
> the emulator. Fixing the emulator is obviously the optimal solution,
> but it takes some doing, and nobody seems interested (most people,
> including me, seem to have a 387). The fact that the emulator works
> "well enough" for most things makes it a pretty boring project, so
> nobody has done anything about it.
>
> Linus
I've been thinking about getting a 387 - mainly for running stuff under Linux but
also to speed up some DOS applications. Will any old 387 (Intel, Cyrix etc) do?
Or is there a significant difference between them?
BTW I have also had problems with math calculations under Linux - code that compiles
and runs under Sun-OS and Linux do not give the same results.
Phil.