http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #26 from Richard B. Kreckel 2011-11-04
08:17:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> By the way, if isn't clear already, I would be *really* curious to know which
> specific targets by now can't just enable the builtins, eg, their libc
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #25 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-04
00:53:29 UTC ---
By the way, if isn't clear already, I would be *really* curious to know which
specific targets by now can't just enable the builtins, eg, their libc doesn't
provide the C99 complex fu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #24 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-04
00:51:49 UTC ---
Thanks Richard for double checking!
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #23 from Richard B. Kreckel 2011-11-03
23:57:55 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Well, I guess this would be most of it:
>
> template
> std::complex<_Tp>
> __complex_acosh(const std::complex<_Tp>& __z)
> {
> re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #21 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-02 21:54:29 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 2 21:54:24 2011
New Revision: 180804
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180804
Log:
2011-11-02 Richard B. Kreckel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #20 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-02 18:43:46 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 2 18:43:42 2011
New Revision: 180788
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180788
Log:
2011-11-02 Richard B. Kreckel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #19 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-11-02 18:43:31 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Wed Nov 2 18:43:26 2011
New Revision: 180787
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180787
Log:
2011-11-02 Richard B. Kreckel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #18 from Gabriel Dos Reis 2011-11-02
12:48:47 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Well, I guess this would be most of it:
>
> template
> std::complex<_Tp>
> __complex_acosh(const std::complex<_Tp>& __z)
> {
> retu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #17 from Gabriel Dos Reis 2011-11-02
12:48:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #16)
> Well, I guess this would be most of it:
>
> template
> std::complex<_Tp>
> __complex_acosh(const std::complex<_Tp>& __z)
> {
> retu
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-02
12:44:06 UTC ---
Well, I guess this would be most of it:
template
std::complex<_Tp>
__complex_acosh(const std::complex<_Tp>& __z)
{
return _Tp(2.0) * std::log(std::sqrt(_Tp(0.5) *
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #15 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-02
12:31:09 UTC ---
Ok, thanks for your feedback Gaby. Indeed, I also wondered if we shouldn't work
with the components.
Richard, can you send a version of Kahan's algorithm rewritten in terms of real
a
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #14 from Gabriel Dos Reis 2011-11-02
12:27:20 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #9)
> Created attachment 25654 [details]
> BC2
Since we are talking about branch cut and prespectiving
since zeros, I think we should avoid the
the arithmeti
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
Gabriel Dos Reis changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||gdr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #13
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #12 from Paolo Carlini 2011-11-02
09:40:26 UTC ---
In my opinion BC2 is fine, I can take of applying it, if you still endorse it.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
Richard B. Kreckel changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #10 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-28
22:09:57 UTC ---
Richard, I have no problems with BC2. This is code I wrote rather quickly a few
years ago, adapting it from glibc, essentially, and then each year that went
by, fewer and fewer system
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #9 from Richard B. Kreckel 2011-10-28
21:54:07 UTC ---
Created attachment 25654
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25654
BC2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #8 from Richard B. Kreckel 2011-10-28
21:53:30 UTC ---
Created attachment 25653
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25653
BC1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #7 from Richard B. Kreckel 2011-10-28
21:52:08 UTC ---
> As soon as I find a bit of
> time, we can also *consistently over all those cases* use __builtin_signbit,
> as
> suggested by Gaby elsewhere. I have to double check with the mi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini 2011-10-28
09:10:09 UTC ---
Indeed you are right about the sign, in terms at least of consistency with the
rest of the fallback implementations which already have got quite a number of
comparisons with zero with
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #5 from Richard B. Kreckel 2011-10-28
07:06:57 UTC ---
On 10/27/2011 11:24 AM, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> Thus, to understand and clarify why this has not been noticed so far, you are
> on a target which doesn't support
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #4 from paolo at gcc dot gnu.org
2011-10-27 11:00:30 UTC ---
Author: paolo
Date: Thu Oct 27 11:00:25 2011
New Revision: 180563
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=180563
Log:
2011-10-27 Richard B. Kreckel
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #1 from Richard B. Kreckel 2011-10-27
07:12:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 25623
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=25623
patch to fix the bug
26 matches
Mail list logo
