On Monday 02 October 2006 19:39, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> "Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Jan van Dijk wrote:
> | > On Monday 02 October 2006 12:57, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> | > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Jan van Dijk wrote:
[...]
> | > Triggered by 1*(Inf,0) = (Inf,NaN), I looked inside the compiler for
> | > the first
> |
> | (Inf,NaN) is a valid complex infinity just as (Inf,0) is; see G.3.
>
> I think his concern is about the evaluation of 1 * (Inf, 0).
1*(Inf,0) gives (Inf,NaN) with the recent gcc version (with -O0 or arguments
unknown at compile time). I now understand that this is correct: according to
the standard a complex number is Inf if one of the components is Inf (even if
the other is NaN).
It is also *unfortunate*:
std::abs(1*(Inf,0)) -> nan, where Inf would be expected by the user;
1/std::abs(1*(Inf,0)) ->nan, where 0 would be expected.
The result is that (for example) in the evaluation of small-argument
expansions of special functions special-case-handling is required to avoid
the generation of NaNs for 'too-low' |z|, where Inf or 0 is expected. Note
that the analogous expressions for (IEE 754) floating point numbers work as
expected when overflow/underflow happens. The bottom line is that the
concept of infinity/nan is of limited practical value for complex numbers.
Doing multiplications in terms of polar representations would solve all such
problems for complex numbers, BTW.
Anyway, this behaviour is standard-conformant, if we assume that C++ is
supposed to mimmick C in the behaviour of complex numbers (where is that
written, BTW?) People doing scientific computing in C(++) shall have to live
with this, I am afraid.
More serious is the fact that the compiler translates 1*(Inf,Inf) into
(NaN,NaN). This is plain wrong, but, as Joseph mentioned, the solution
requires the implementation of mixed-mode MULT_EXPRESSIONS, since apparently
1*(Inf,Inf) == (Inf,Inf) != (1,0)*(Inf,Inf)==(NaN,NaN).
Is the latter project suitable for a motivated newby? I am willing to spend
some time and effort into this issue, but will definitely need guidance from
time to time.
With kind regards,
Jan van Dijk.
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
Dr. Jan van Dijk
Eindhoven University of Technology
Department of Applied Physics
Group Elementary Processes in Gas Discharges
Room Na-2.09
P.O. Box 513
5600 MB Eindhoven
The Netherlands
tel. +31 40 247 57 65
