http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #24 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-05-04 23:23:57 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed May 4 23:23:54 2011
New Revision: 173400
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=173400
Log:
2011-05-04 Marc Glisse
PR libst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #23 from Paolo Carlini 2011-05-04
17:56:19 UTC ---
Nit (for the future): library patches are diffed from where the library
ChangeLog is.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #21 from Marc Glisse 2011-05-04
16:27:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 24182
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=24182
first iteration in patch format
Inserted in , with some cleanup of dead code, rewrite of ratio_less.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #20 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-03
09:51:16 UTC ---
Ah, ok then: when I looked a bit into boost::rational it seemed pretty simple,
didn't notice that additional simplification. Thanks for the additional set of
tests, anyway, as soon as
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #19 from Marc Glisse 2011-03-03
06:41:45 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #18)
> I'm not sure to understand, I was under the impression that right now GCC is
> essentially equal to boost::rational?!?
That's the heuristic I was mentioning
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #18 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-02
23:21:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #17)
> Some more examples. Using the constants:
> m=INTMAX_MAX;
> n=INTMAX_MAX/2;
> p=((intmax_t)1<<(4*sizeof(intmax_t)-1))-3
>
> (m,2)-(m,3)==(m,6) boost shoul
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #17 from Marc Glisse 2011-03-02
20:50:42 UTC ---
Some more examples. Using the constants:
m=INTMAX_MAX;
n=INTMAX_MAX/2;
p=((intmax_t)1<<(4*sizeof(intmax_t)-1))-3
(m,2)-(m,3)==(m,6) boost should manage this one
(m/7*5-1,5)-(m-2,7)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-02
14:59:23 UTC ---
Done. Then we can add more tests to 47913.cc.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #15 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-03-02 14:58:00 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Mar 2 14:57:57 2011
New Revision: 170616
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=170616
Log:
2011-03-02 Marc Glisse
PR libst
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #14 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-02
14:14:55 UTC ---
Excellent.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #13 from Marc Glisse 2011-03-02
14:05:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> Thanks for the attachment. Do you have a small testcase for it? I would test
> here, commit, and then we can proceed with more serious changes for post
> 4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-02
12:07:13 UTC ---
About int/long/long long I see what you mean, but we should double check that
__builtin_clzll is unconditionally available and the same as __builtin_clz if
intmax_t == int (etc): at t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #11 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-02
11:59:34 UTC ---
Thanks for the attachment. Do you have a small testcase for it? I would test
here, commit, and then we can proceed with more serious changes for post 4.6...
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse 2011-03-02
11:53:58 UTC ---
Created attachment 23512
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23512
avoid denominator overflows (untested)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #9 from Marc Glisse 2011-03-02
11:50:41 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> Right. Mine was sort of a general comment: the comments in ratio_less are also
> rather terse ;)
I'll try to expand a bit on them.
> I don't think you should
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #8 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-02
10:59:06 UTC ---
Hi,
> > 1- Please make sure the code is minimally documented (are the comments in
> > longlong.h enough?)
>
> Ok, I wasn't sure it was worth it if the code was unlikely to ever make
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #7 from Marc Glisse 2011-03-02
09:59:52 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> 1- Please make sure the code is minimally documented (are the comments in
> longlong.h enough?)
Ok, I wasn't sure it was worth it if the code was unlikely to
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-03-01
23:00:05 UTC ---
Thanks again for your help on this.
Preliminarily, a few observations: 1- Please make sure the code is minimally
documented (are the comments in longlong.h enough?); 2- I see stuff li
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #5 from Marc Glisse 2011-03-01
22:15:48 UTC ---
Created attachment 23509
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=23509
Overkill
I was having a hard time making it nice and clean, so I went for totally
overkill. It might b
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||paolo.carlini at oracle dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|paolo.carlini at oracle dot |unassigned at gcc dot
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
--- Comment #2 from Marc Glisse 2011-02-27
19:12:07 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Looks like there is a pretty simple (eg, no continued fractions & co) way to
> do
> this:
The continued fraction thing for ratio_less may actually be easier:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=47913
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot |paolo.carlini at oracle dot
25 matches
Mail list logo
