Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug?

[Christian Anthon]

This is going to be a bit of a nightmare to track. Could it be
settings or procedure dependent?

Christian.

On Wed, Aug 5, 2009 at 10:19 AM, Ingo Macherius<address@hidden> wrote:
> Problem can not be reprosuced on Linux x86_64 with gcc 4.3 either, despite
> heavy Optimization flags used. All gnubg settings are compile time default.
>
> gcc version 4.3.2 (Debian 4.3.2-1.1)
> Target: x86_64-linux-gnu
>
> gcc -pipe -combine -march=core2 -O3 -funsafe-loop-optimizations
> -funsafe-math-optimizations -ffast-math -freciprocal-math -ftree-vectorize
> -mfpmath=sse -mssse3 -msse3 -msse -msse2 -fomit-frame-pointer -msahf
>
> (inim)set gnubgid NwAAgN3MAGgBAA:cAnmAEAAIAAA
> [...]
> (inim) hint 1
>     1. Cubeful 0-ply    21/17 19/18                  MWC:  22.81%
>        0.000 0.000 0.000 - 1.000 1.000 0.085
>         0-ply cubeful [expert]
> Ingo
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden
> [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Michael
> Petch
> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 4:44 AM
> To: Zulli, Louis P
> Cc: address@hidden; Øystein Johansen; address@hidden
> Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: gnubg bug?
>
>
> I can confirm Zulli’s findings as well. On the MAC the issue doesn’t exist
> (Intel  with OS/X 10.5.7). Pruning doesn’t alter the behavior (It just works
> as expected) I used both version of GCC on apple (4.0.1 and 4.2.1):
>
>  On 04/08/09 7:42 PM, "Zulli, Louis P" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>
> Anyway, with Pruning On or Off and at all ply levels I seem to get 21/17
> 19/18 being best.
>
> Maybe there's a gcc-4.3 related problem? Maybe I'll try Intel's icc later.
>
> Louis
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
>
>