This is the mail archive of the fortran@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GNU Fortran project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: csin implementation discrepancy vs glibc

From: "Richard Guenther" <richard dot guenther at gmail dot com>
To: "Kaveh R. GHAZI" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
Cc: fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2007 16:20:43 +0100
Subject: Re: csin implementation discrepancy vs glibc
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=LEQNd5eILtITWpviDbTUiC3PbJAlsxaSKCO8hGjkYfjXhgLGeBOB6Y3t2S57yT9no1Z05RKEDxm6DoHFtF0bFhcAy5CTfTGiYuGrr0Ms9ZpGxddmossUQZSGkfoaM/zTxAubX2SZkr+B97z2oNNBe4EM/SLpSQarC/XDtehb1KA=
References: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0701190952200.23743@caipclassic.rutgers.edu>

On 1/19/07, Kaveh R. GHAZI <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:

It occurred to me that the fortran list might be interested in a
discrepancy I found between fortran/simplify.c:gfc_simplify_sin and the
glibc implementation of csin.  See:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2007-01/msg01610.html

Thoughts?

The glibc variant is obviously broken as ccos(PI) != cos(PI) for them.

Richard.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: csin implementation discrepancy vs glibc
  - From: Kaveh R. GHAZI

References:
- csin implementation discrepancy vs glibc
  - From: Kaveh R. GHAZI

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]