------- Comment #1 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-01-17 04:48 -------
Jakub, a few observations: the first one, we have got other PRs about complex
math (e.g., 24581, 28408), I don't know if you are aware of that, it would be
great if you could have a unified look. Also, I don't think we want to change
the library here (like in you link), I think we discussed this kind of solution
for such troubles other times and we came to the conclusion that really these
are compiler issues, because we are relying in a very straightforward way on
the complex extension (maybe Gaby has something to add). Also, as you may also
find in some of the existing audit trails and past discussions on gcc@, people
is particularly troubled by the large differences in behavior when optimizing
and not, I think we should tackle that issue.
Ah, maybe the most important point for this specific PR: I think we *do* want a
behavior of the complex division in C++ consistent with C99 (and LIA-2, which,
AFAIK, is consistent with C99), for many different reasons, among other things,
the new standard will be "based" on C99, not C89, probably Gaby has something
to add. Unfortunately, I'm afraid the way we are implementing C99 vs complex in
the middle-end is buggy, see 24581, Joseph' comments in particular, but
consistency between the C99 and the C++ math seems to me an improvement anyway.
--
pcarlini at suse dot de changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |gdr at integrable-solutions
| |dot net
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30482
