This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libfortran/24903] dotprod should use conj?
- From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 21 Nov 2005 22:53:43 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libfortran/24903] dotprod should use conj?
- References: <bug-24903-6528@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 22:53 -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> I'm ready to do that, but since complex numbers in C are always a pain, I
> want to know: are we sure that conj/conjf/conjl are *always* available? I
> mean, are they part of the things gcc provides even if there is no library
> support for them in the runtime libm?
Hmm, I have to think about that but you can always use the GCC extension :) as
mentioned before.
I think the builtin version of conj/conjf/conjl
(__builtin_conj/__builtin_conjf/__builtin_conjl) is always expanded to
CONJ_EXPR but I could be wrong.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24903