It's difficult to say what exactly were the views of Sri Caitanya on Madhva's Dvaita because there are no much info on that in the biographies of Sri Caitanya, and Sri Caitanya himself didn't write any book in which he would, say, explain his teachings precisely and in detail, even speaking critically on the teachings of other sampradaya schools (Hindu traditional schools) and acaryas (Hindu traditional teachers). But at least we could say that there are differences in scriptural interpretation between Madhva and Gaudiya Vaishnavas. The easiest way how to see this is to compare how Madhva explained some verses and how Gaudiya Vaishnavas explained those verses. For example, if you go verse by verse of the Bhagavad gita commentaries written by Madhva and some Gaudiya Vaishnava acarya, if you compare them you'll see that sometimes they greatly differ in opinion as to how some verse should be translated and explained. Now, the thing is that just because there is the difference in opinion about some verse it still doesn't necessarily mean that there Gaudiya Vaishnavas must be thinking Madhva failed at that verse, ie misinterpreted that verse. This is so because sometimes it is possible to interpret some verse in several different ways which all can be correct due to the fact that a verse can have several different meanings. However, sometimes Gaudiya Vaishnavas might possibly think that Madhva's interpretation is not acceptable, or that is to say it's wrong. Now, since there are many of such instances where Gaudiya Vaishnavas differ in opinion from Madhva, it's not always easy to say whether Gaudiya Vaishnavas differ in opinion from Madhva because they just prefer some other possible meaning of the verse, or they differ in opinion from Madhva because they think Madhva was wrong. By the way, those kind of questions concerning possible criticism of one sampradaya school (one Hindu traditional school) towards other sampradaya school belong to more advanced study of sampradaya schools and their particular scriptural interpretations, and since both of those schools, Madhvas as well as Gaudiya Vaishnavas are followers of Vedanta, namely they both are Vedanta schools, to find possible criticism of Gaudiya Vaishnavas towards Madhvas would require solid and good background in knowledge of Vedanta.
That what I said above applies not only to possible criticism of Gaudiya Vaishnavas towards Madhva but to any other acarya or author such as Ramanuja, etc, or any other school.
To be sure that Gaudiya Vaishnavas made criticism of Madhva, or any other Hindu sampradaya or acarya, we should search for their explicit statement to that effect such as "we do not agree with acarya this or that or school this or that", or at least we should search for their explicit statement to the effect where they say that the verse cannot be interpreted in such and such manner, or even what they mention in the Purvapakshas in their books such as Vedanta sutra commentary. But there are not much of those explicit statements in the Gaudiya Vaishnava books except for Vedanta sutra commentary where many such examples can be found.
For comparison you can take Srila Prabhupada's commentary on the Bhagavad gita, Bhagavad-gita As It Is available at vedabase, and Madhva's commentary on the Bhagavad gita under the title The Bhagavadgita Bhasya of Sri Madhvacarya Rendered into English by Dr. B.N.K. Sharma.
