This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: complex arithmetic in gcc (and various standards)


On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Paolo Carlini wrote:

> I'm not sure if the following is exactly Joseph' point, but I'd like to know
> your opinion about it anyway: if you look to Comment #19 in the audit trail of
> PR 28408, I noticed that, due to the rule about signed zero (with default
> rounding):
>      (+0) + (-0) = +0
> 
> the result of the "same" multiplication considered as complex * complex (vs
> complex * real) has a different sign for the zero imaginary component.

Yes, that's my point.

For C99, real*complex and complex*complex are two different operations and 
neither should be converted into the other.  At present we wrongly convert 
the first into the present, and then sometimes wrongly optimize back.

-- 
Joseph S. Myers
joseph@codesourcery.com


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