------- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net 2004-12-09 16:03 ------- Subject: Re: Naive (default) complex division algorithm
"joseph at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | ------- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-09 11:46 ------- | Subject: Re: Naive (default) complex division algorithm | | On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote: | | > A naive idea: would make sense swithing from flag_complex_divide_method == 0 | > to flag_complex_divide_method == 1 basing on -ffast-math or other, finer grained, | > floating point, switch?!? | | I'd suggest naming the switch -fcx-limited-range (including in | -ffast-math). With due warning in the documentation that even the better | algorithm currently implemented doesn't avoid all excess overflow. Given I suppose you don't mean a warning each time that flag is used, but rather a note in our documentation. | that C99 does expect something better than the naive algorithm it might | still make sense to switch to the better algorithm we have as the default | (with this flag to control it, and in future hopefully the | CX_LIMITED_RANGE pragma) for C. I strongly support the idea that the non-grammar school algorithm should be the default. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18902
