--
Bug 18902 depends on bug 19974, which changed state.
Bug 19974 Summary: incorrect complex division on ia-64 with flag_complex_method
= 2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19974
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 18902 depends on bug 19953, which changed state.
Bug 19953 Summary: Special-case real + complex arithmetic operation
(-ffast-math)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19953
What|Old Value |New Value
--
--
Bug 18902 depends on bug 19953, which changed state.
Bug 19953 Summary: Special-case real + complex arithmetic operation
(-ffast-math)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19953
What|Old Value |New Value
--
--
Bug 18902 depends on bug 19953, which changed state.
Bug 19953 Summary: Special-case real + complex arithmetic operation
(-ffast-math)
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19953
What|Old Value |New Value
--
--
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.0.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18902
--- Additional Comments From rth at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-24 09:25
---
Fixed.
--
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
--- Additional Comments From cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-02-24
09:24 ---
Subject: Bug 18902
CVSROOT:/cvs/gcc
Module name:gcc
Changes by: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-02-24 09:24:18
Modified files:
gcc: ChangeLog c-opts.c common.opt opts.c
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-02-02 12:54
---
Rth is actively working on these issues.
--
What|Removed |Added
AssignedTo|pcarlini at suse
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-26 10:54
---
> This is a huge step. I think PR 18902 should now be considered
> critical, at least for gfortran.
Ok, I'll start on it immediately (after all, it's rather straightforward, now).
Then the maintainers will decide
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-01-26
09:32 ---
The recent fixes in complex handling, and the
scaled division algorithm, have eliminated the
Lapack regressions with -O0 at least on ia64-unknown-linux-gnu
(see http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
--
Bug 18902 depends on bug 19609, which changed state.
Bug 19609 Summary: [4.0 Regression] real and imaginary part interchanged when
flags_complex_divide_method=1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19609
What|Old Value |New Value
--
Bug 18902 depends on bug 19486, which changed state.
Bug 19486 Summary: flags_complex_divide_method=1 doesn't work
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=19486
What|Old Value |New Value
---
--- Additional Comments From toon at moene dot indiv dot nluug dot nl
2005-01-21 20:23 ---
Subject: Re: Naive (default) complex division algorithm
pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> --- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-20 12:10
> ---
> A first implement
pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-20 12:10
---
A first implementation of the algorithm was already in 3_4, under the name
expand_cmplxdiv_wide (in optabs.cc), then Rth rewrote it in the tree-ssa branch
as part of the new tree-compl
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-20 12:10
---
A first implementation of the algorithm was already in 3_4, under the name
expand_cmplxdiv_wide (in optabs.cc), then Rth rewrote it in the tree-ssa branch
as part of the new tree-complex.cc (It would be mildly inte
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-01-20 11:50
---
Hi Thomas, can you possibly figure out from the ChangeLog the author of the
algorithm with scaling, which currently seems broken, and add him in CC? We
want to fix it, in the first place.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/
--- Additional Comments From Thomas dot Koenig at online dot de 2005-01-20
10:45 ---
For gfortran, this is a regression against g77.
See this test program:
$ cat complex-scale.f
program main
implicit none
complex ca,cb,cc
data ca /(+2.3955909e+19,-1.2258349e-38)/
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-12-23 23:22
---
*** Bug 19138 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
What|Removed |Added
--- Additional Comments From bangerth at dealii dot org 2004-12-23 23:05
---
A special case of what is covered in this PR is PR 19138.
W.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18902
--- Additional Comments From gdr at integrable-solutions dot net
2004-12-09 16:03 ---
Subject: Re: Naive (default) complex division algorithm
"joseph at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| --- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-09
11:
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-12-09 13:31
---
> There is no regression here, so I recommend holding off until 4.0 has
> branched.
Definitely. Thanks again.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18902
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-09
13:25 ---
Subject: Re: Naive (default) complex division algorithm
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> Thanks Joseph. I will try to come up with a patch as soon as possible, but
There is no regress
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-12-09 13:01
---
Thanks Joseph. I will try to come up with a patch as soon as possible, but
please be gentle while reviewing it, would be my first one for the compiler
proper ;)
--
What|Removed
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-09
11:46 ---
Subject: Re: Naive (default) complex division algorithm
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> A naive idea: would make sense swithing from flag_complex_divide_method == 0
> to flag_complex_
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-12-09 11:33
---
A naive idea: would make sense swithing from flag_complex_divide_method == 0
to flag_complex_divide_method == 1 basing on -ffast-math or other, finer
grained,
floating point, switch?!?
--
What|Rem
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-12-09 11:26
---
> The Annex G example still comes with a warning that it may yield undue
> overflow: it illustrates how to get the treatment of infinities expected
> in that informative Annex, not how to avoid excess overflow in
--- Additional Comments From joseph at codesourcery dot com 2004-12-09
11:17 ---
Subject: Re: New: Naive (default) complex division
algorithm
On Thu, 9 Dec 2004, pcarlini at suse dot de wrote:
> I'm attaching a trivial, pure C, testcase, showing at least inconsistency in
> the
> beh
--- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2004-12-09 11:09
---
Created an attachment (id=7712)
--> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=7712&action=view)
A trivial testcase
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18902
28 matches
Mail list logo
