This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC 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: [PATCH]: Integrate gfortran with MPC

From: "Kaveh R. Ghazi" <ghazi at caip dot rutgers dot edu>
To: "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia at gmail dot com>
Cc: "Steve Kargl" <sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu>, "Tobias Burnus" <burnus at net-b dot de>, <fortran at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 16:24:36 -0700
Subject: Re: [PATCH]: Integrate gfortran with MPC
References: <B893CE4B787949BDB96C7366FEA4CA8C@glap> <de8d50360905281608r22de805aqe4be9e067d616d14@mail.gmail.com>

From: "Andrew Pinski" <pinskia@gmail.com>

On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi <ghazi@caip.rutgers.edu> wrote:
I'm wondering if it was really meant for fortran to be different, or is this a bug accidentally immortalized in the testcase? I.e. what does the fortran standard say?
Well the Fortran standard does not have INF or NaNs.  Though for
Fortran 2003, the IEEE types have them.
-- Pinski

That didn't answer my question, I'll try and phrase it more precisely. Is gfortran's current behavior of complex division for finite/zero a bug (to be fixed) or a feature (to be preserved)?

PS: Andrew, did you see this?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2009-05/msg01665.html

References:
- Re: [PATCH]: Integrate gfortran with MPC
  - From: Kaveh R. Ghazi
- Re: [PATCH]: Integrate gfortran with MPC
  - From: Andrew Pinski

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