[Help-gsl] Make check fails

[Michael Braun]

Hi.  I am installing gsl-1.12 on a Mac Pro running MacOSX 10.5.6 (with  
2 quad-core Intel Xeon 5472 processors).  My goal here was to compile  
gsl to be as fast as possible (link to optimized BLAS, etc).  So  
here's what I did to install

make clean
export CC=gcc-4.2
export CFLAGS="-fast -march=core2 -m64 -g -p -pg -framework Accelerate  
-msse3 -ftree-vectorize"
export LIBS="-framework Accelerate"
./configure      (I did this both with and without --disable-shared)
make
sudo make install
make check

make check runs fine until it hits the following tests.

Making check in rng
make  test
gcc-4.2 -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -I..    -fast -march=core2 -m64 -g -p  
-pg -framework Accelerate -msse3 -ftree-vectorize -c test.c
i686-apple-darwin9-gcc-4.2.1: -framework: linker input file unused  
because linking not done
i686-apple-darwin9-gcc-4.2.1: Accelerate: linker input file unused  
because linking not done
/bin/sh ../libtool --tag=CC   --mode=link gcc-4.2  -fast -march=core2 - 
m64 -g -p -pg -framework Accelerate -msse3 -ftree-vectorize   -o test  
test.o libgslrng.la ../ieee-utils/libgslieeeutils.la ../err/ 
libgslerr.la ../test/libgsltest.la ../sys/libgslsys.la ../utils/ 
libutils.la -framework Accelerate
libtool: link: gcc-4.2 -fast -march=core2 -m64 -g -p -pg -msse3 -ftree- 
vectorize -o test test.o  ./.libs/libgslrng.a ../ieee-utils/.libs/ 
libgslieeeutils.a ../err/.libs/libgslerr.a ../test/.libs/ 
libgsltest.a ../sys/.libs/libgslsys.a ../utils/.libs/libutils.a - 
framework Accelerate
make  check-TESTS
FAIL: random-bsd, 10000 steps (170686280 observed vs 1457025928  
expected) [53]
FAIL: random32-bsd, 10000 steps (930365817 observed vs 1663114331  
expected) [55]
FAIL: random64-bsd, 10000 steps (538016196 observed vs 864469165  
expected) [56]
FAIL: random128-bsd, 10000 steps (170781969 observed vs 1457025928  
expected) [57]
FAIL: random256-bsd, 10000 steps (75678204 observed vs 1216357476  
expected) [58]
FAIL: random-libc5, 10000 steps (984007580 observed vs 428084942  
expected) [59]
FAIL: random32-libc5, 10000 steps (914729519 observed vs 1967452027  
expected) [61]
FAIL: random128-libc5, 10000 steps (155010066 observed vs 428084942  
expected) [63]
FAIL: random128-bsd, ratio of int to double (0.656333 observed vs  
39.8959 expected) [90]
FAIL: random128-libc5, ratio of int to double (1.45346 observed vs  
1.66301 expected) [92]
FAIL: random256-bsd, ratio of int to double (0.764403 observed vs  
2.79652 expected) [93]
FAIL: random32-bsd, ratio of int to double (8.85443 observed vs  
1.72848 expected) [96]
FAIL: random32-libc5, ratio of int to double (1.76834 observed vs  
0.0786197 expected) [98]
FAIL: random64-bsd, ratio of int to double (2.7387 observed vs  
0.0997496 expected) [99]
FAIL: random-bsd, ratio of int to double (0.352452 observed vs  
0.684362 expected) [105]
FAIL: random-libc5, ratio of int to double (1.45346 observed vs  
1.66301 expected) [107]
FAIL: test

So I'm not sure if this is a feature or a bug (or something I'm doing  
wrong).  Any ideas?

Thanks,

Michael




-------------------------------------------
Michael Braun
Homer A. Burnell Career Development Professor, and
        Assistant Professor of Management Science (Marketing Group)
MIT Sloan School of Management
One Amherst St., E40-169
Cambridge, MA 02142
address@hidden
617-253-3436