This web mail archive is frozen.
This page is part of a frozen web archive of this mailing list.
You can still navigate around this archive, but know that no new mails
have been added to it since July of 2016.
Click here to be taken to the new web archives of this list; it includes all the mails that are in this frozen archive plus all new mails that have been sent to the list since it was migrated to the new archives.
On 4/27/2010 11:55 PM, Fabian Hänsel wrote:
> Hi Ali,
>> I have solved that problem. I just removed the gcc flag -O3 from my
>> compile script and the error vanished. However the speed of my code
>> is also reduced to 50 iterations/minute from 70 iterations/minute,
>> still not bad.
>> Is there any alternative to -O3 flag?
>> I tried -O2 too but this also gives errors.
> You could try to set optimizations more fine-grained. Every
> -Osomething stands for a certain set of optimizations. Start with e.g.
> "gcc -Q -O2 --help=optimizers" to see all available optimizations and
> which are enabled at -O2. Read about them on the gcc manpage. Disable
> those that decrease accuracy. Enable more from the O3 level if you
> like. Be aware that decreased accuracy is maybe the source of your
> described performance gain. As your algorithm seems to be quite
> (numerically) instable, an additional look into dokumentation
> regarding precision and general sources regarding numerical instablity
> might benefit you while estimating the effects of certain optimizations.
If you are seeing run-time problems as soon as you invoke optimization,
an evident suspicion is that you may have bugs such as uninitialized
variables or range errors. If you are lucky, turning on the associated
gcc diagnostics and run-time checks may help discover them.