This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
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> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: "Andrew Pinski" <email@example.com>
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Kaveh R. Ghazi <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I'm wondering if it was really meant for fortran to be different, or is
a bug accidentally immortalized in the testcase? I.e. what does the
Well the Fortran standard does not have INF or NaNs. Though for
Fortran 2003, the IEEE types have them.
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?