This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/50880] __complex_acosh() picks wrong complex branch
- From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2011 09:10:09 +0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/50880] __complex_acosh() picks wrong complex branch
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-50880-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50880
--- Comment #6 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 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 no special attention to its signedness (like '<
_Tp()' or '> _Tp()'). I had already noticed that. 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 middle-end people
that it doesn't generate library calls for the patch to be neat.