[Bug libfortran/24903] dotprod should use conj?

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #4 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2006-02-16 07:52 
---
Subject: Bug 24903

Author: fxcoudert
Date: Thu Feb 16 07:52:22 2006
New Revision: 31

URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=31
Log:
PR libfortran/24903
* m4/dotprodc.m4: Use __builtin_conj instead of assigning real
and imaginary parts separately.
* generated/dotprod_c4.c: Regenerated.
* generated/dotprod_c8.c: Regenerated.
* generated/dotprod_c10.c: Regenerated.
* generated/dotprod_c16.c: Regenerated.

Modified:
trunk/libgfortran/ChangeLog
trunk/libgfortran/generated/dotprod_c10.c
trunk/libgfortran/generated/dotprod_c16.c
trunk/libgfortran/generated/dotprod_c4.c
trunk/libgfortran/generated/dotprod_c8.c
trunk/libgfortran/m4/dotprodc.m4


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24903

[Bug libfortran/24903] dotprod should use conj?

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

-- 

fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 AssignedTo|unassigned at gcc dot gnu   |fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot
   |dot org |org
URL||http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/fortra
   ||n/2006-02/msg00112.html
 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
   Keywords||patch
   Last reconfirmed|2005-11-20 00:40:09 |2006-02-06 22:16:16
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24903

[Bug libfortran/24903] dotprod should use conj?

[fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #2 from fxcoudert at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-21 09:11 
---
(In reply to comment #0)
 conjga = conj(*pa);
 or
 conjga = conjl(*pa);
 or
 conjga = conjf(*pa);

I'm ready to do that, but since complex numbers in C are always a pain, I want
to know: are we sure that conj/conjf/conjl are *always* available? I mean, are
they part of the things gcc provides even if there is no library support for
them in the runtime libm?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24903

[Bug libfortran/24903] dotprod should use conj?

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-21 22:53 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
 I'm ready to do that, but since complex numbers in C are always a pain, I 
 want to know: are we sure that conj/conjf/conjl are *always* available? I
 mean, are they part of the things gcc provides even if there is no library
 support for them in the runtime libm?

Hmm, I have to think about that but you can always use the GCC extension :) as
mentioned before.

I think the builtin version of conj/conjf/conjl
(__builtin_conj/__builtin_conjf/__builtin_conjl) is always expanded to
CONJ_EXPR but I could be wrong.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24903

[Bug libfortran/24903] dotprod should use conj?

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2005-11-20 00:40 ---
Confirmed.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
 Ever Confirmed|0   |1
   Last reconfirmed|-00-00 00:00:00 |2005-11-20 00:40:09
   date||


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24903