http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58020
--- Comment #15 from fkrogh at mathalacarte dot com ---
Hi Francois-Xavier --
I'm sorry, but Richard did all the work on this, and I'm just a
sorry middle man. We are both people specializing in computational
mathematics, and thus not likely to be helpful with respect to your
question number 2. With this email I'm asking Richard to give you a
more detailed response.
Many thanks for looking into this,
Fred
On 11/05/2013 05:54 AM, fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58020
>
> Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
>
> What |Removed |Added
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CC| |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org
> Blocks| |29383
>
> --- Comment #13 from Francois-Xavier Coudert <fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu.org>
> ---
> I may have a bit of time in November and December to look at this. I actually
> had started implementing the IEEE modules in gfortran back in 2008-2009, but
> never got too far (I was unclear, back then, on the exact requirements for
> things like constant folding… some interps have made clear that our job is
> actually easier than I thought back then).
>
> So, a few questions to Fred and Richard:
>
> 0. Thanks for contributing your work to our open-source effort!
> 1. What is the current status of your code w.r.t. the IEEE modules? Do you
> have full coverage? Full test coverage? Does it depend on 32 vs 64-bit?
> 2. Although you don't plan to support other architectures than i386/x86_64,
> we
> have to think about it. The current approach does not seem to lend itself to
> writing new ports easily. How do you think we could better insulate the
> processor-specific code from the higher-level IEEE modules themselves?
>
> I have started reading the code, but your answers would be very much
> appreciated!
>
