Re: Using the MPC library (complex cousin of MPFR) for simplifications in gfortran

[Tobias Burnus <burnus at net-b dot de>]

Steve Kargl wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 01:40:18PM -0700, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
>   
>>> The other question is whether it makes sense to wait for version 1.0 of
>>> MPC.
>>>       
>> I think we can start using it now, but until version MPC 1.0 it out and/or 
>> the API is declared stable, I suggest we make it optional like the 
>> ppl/cloog libraries.  My configurey patch defines an autoconf macro one can 
>> check for this purpose
> IMHO, this is a very bad idea.
>   
I think it is a good idea, esp. as I think that the for us relevant bits
of the API will remains stable. Of cause, before MPC becomes required,
the current implementation will have to be used as fall back.


Regarding your question,
>> In my plans to incorporate MPC, I had thought about using it for
>> fortran, hence why I asked about existing testcases in the link
>> below.  I wanted to know if something would squawk if I broke things:
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortran/2009-01/msg00142.html 
I think the reason that a large test-suite coverage is missing is that
it is an old feature. At that time it was more important to get
something running than to write extensive test cases. I think all of us
wished to have a larger coverage, but writing test cases for
(mostly/completely) working features is a bit tedious.

Tobias