On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Paolo Carlini wrote: > I'm not sure if the following is exactly Joseph' point, but I'd like to know > your opinion about it anyway: if you look to Comment #19 in the audit trail of > PR 28408, I noticed that, due to the rule about signed zero (with default > rounding): > (+0) + (-0) = +0 > > the result of the "same" multiplication considered as complex * complex (vs > complex * real) has a different sign for the zero imaginary component.
Yes, that's my point. For C99, real*complex and complex*complex are two different operations and neither should be converted into the other. At present we wrongly convert the first into the present, and then sometimes wrongly optimize back. -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
