On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Jan van Dijk wrote: > 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).
In C99 mode, the libgcc function should be called to ensure that you don't get (NaN,NaN), as per the Annex G algorithm. > 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. Instead of trying mixed-type expressions, call save_expr on both real and complex operands, multiply the real and imaginary parts separately and then form a COMPLEX_EXPR of the results. Likewise for addition, subtraction and complex/real division (real/complex division can continue to be handled like complex/complex). You'll need to change how build_binary_op uses c_common_type since in these cases you'll no longer want to convert both operands to that type - the complex operand should be converted to it, but the real operand to the corresponding real type. -- Joseph S. Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
