| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>, <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: RPM building (was regression on RedHat) |
| Date: | 2001-03-22 16:22:14 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.LNX.4.30.0103221720450.1208-100000@peter.localdomain |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Lockhart writes:
> ?? I think we agree. It happens to be the case that slightly incorrect
> results are wrong results, and that full IEEE math conformance gives
> exactly correct results. For the case of date/time, the "slightly wrong"
> results round up to 60.0 seconds for times on an even minute boundary,
> which is just plain wrong.
Well, you're going to have to ask a numerical analyst about this. If you
take that stance then -ffast-math is always wrong, no matter what the
combination of other switches. The "wrong" results might be harder to
reproduce without any optimization going on, but they could still happen.
--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net http://yi.org/peter-e/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-03-22 16:25:01 | Re: Call for platforms |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2001-03-22 16:20:11 | Re: odbc/UnixWare 7.1.1: No Go. |