Article View: comp.sys.dec
Article #105Single, not double precision on a 240
From: pniy
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:19
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1992 15:19
42 lines
2570 bytes
2570 bytes
Our Decstation 5000/240 has been experiencing a bizarre problem, and DEC is now planning to replace the CPU board to fix it. Since DEC was aware of this problem beforehand, but apparently not aware how widespread the problem was, I thought I should warn people to check for themselves. The initial symptom was a huge program apparently running at single precision even though we were sure it should be getting double precision answers, and even though the same program running on other machines DID give double precision answers. When we finally tried running the program twice with an identical input file, we noticed that it was actually producing output that DIFFERED from one run to another at about the 6'th or 7'th decimal place, not good enough for our purposes. The exact same executable file, when run on a DEC 5000/200, produced consistent results from one run to another (also on the same input file), to all 16 places we would expect. Our machine was delivered at the end of May, and we have found the same problem on another machine delivered about a month later, but it apparently does not afflict all of the 240's, since when we communicated with the DEC service people, they tried running the same executable over there, and it was perfectly consistent from one run to the next, and with the results on the 200 we tested. I have a shorter test program that people can try on their own machines. Please send me e-mail at: asmith@icose.msd.anl.gov if you are interested (NOT at the address this was posted from). This program basically runs a series of random numbers through the sin function, and produces consistent results about 95 % of the time, and inconsistent results (at the 7'th or 8'th decimal place) about 5 % of the time. However, if you change the program slightly it becomes fully consistent (for example, by printing things in a different order, or by rearranging the subroutines called to generate random numbers, or by compiling with -g instead of -O). I would also be interested in hearing who else has had similar experiences (Dec implied there was at least somebody out there who had noticed this before). Arthur Smith (asmith@icose.msd.anl.gov)
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Jul23.111943.13952@vax5.cit.cornell.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!vax5.cit.cornell.edu!pniyShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!newsstand.cit.cornell.edu!vax5.cit.cornell.edu!pniy From: pniy@vax5.cit.cornell.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.dec Subject: Single, not double precision on a 240 Message-ID: <1992Jul23.111943.13952@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> Date: 23 Jul 92 11:19:43 EDT Distribution: comp Organization: Cornell University Lines: 43