Hi,
On 10/12/2017 14:47, Michele Pezzutti wrote:
Hi.
This patch intends to fix Bug 83237 - Values returned by
std::poisson_distribution are not distributed correctly.
See https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83237for issue
description and tests.
In any case, the fix should come with a
Hi,
> I have attached a cpp file that (I believe) should compile (and does on
> Borland c++). It is the copy at the end that causes a problem - the
> while loop is simply doing the same as what the copy should do (just to
> show I did the operator<< properly). Copy works for other cases (ints,
> f
Please let me know where should I report this bug!
Unsurprisingly, I suggest:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
*Please* strive to reduce the relevant testcase as much as
possible.
Thanks,
Paolo.
Can you tell me if this is still the correct address to send bug reports for
GNU C?
Please use Bugzilla instead:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Paolo.
Paolo Carlini wrote:
We are already aware of this issue, since you have already reported
it ;) The relevant PR is middle-end/18902.
Forgot to add: for other issues, related in particular to multiplication,
not only division, please file appropriate Bugzilla PRs.
Thanks!
Paolo.
I have looked at the implementation of complex arithmetic in gcc.
We are already aware of this issue, since you have already reported
it ;) The relevant PR is middle-end/18902.
Indeed, our plan involves enabling the (*already available*) algorithm
due to Smith. There are still some open issues, how
Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
There's also a 3.4/4.0 failure listed here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/2005-01/msg00034.html
Any thoughts on {char,wchar_t}/13189.cc ?
Yes, I'm working on it: something is messed up wrt the includes
necessary when _GLIBCXX_USE___ENC_TRAITS: in normal
builds you don't notice
Hi Kaveh,
Finally, here are the excess -fpic/-fPIC testsuite failures from
mainline on i686-pc-linux-gnu as noted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2005-01/msg00027.html
I'd like some assistance categorizing them please.
I'm trying to help for the libstdc++-v3 failure: can you confirm
Andreas Klein wrote:
Unfortunally I have own no copy of the C99 standard. So I would be glade
if you could give me an internet ressource which disscuss the C99 division
algorithm or something like that. Then I will try to check what we can do.
Ok, thanks. The important section of the C99 standar
solution found at:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/2004-07/msg02128.html
Solution?!?
That PR is closed as INVALID for a reason and in fact nobody actually
removed those qualifiers from the library. The user code must be fixed
instead.
Thanks,
Paolo.
Andreas Klein wrote:
... but notice that this issue is tricky: there are computational issues
(we are adding
at least a branch for each division) and correctness issues (what about
C99?)
As I see it the naive formula needs
6 multipications, 2 divisions and 3 additions/subtractions
and the impr
Paolo Carlini wrote:
I will try to do the same as soon as possible...
I can confirm that setting flag_complex_divide_method = 1 leads to (0, 0).
Paolo.
Andreas Klein wrote:
Have a look to expand_complex_division in gcc/tree-complex.c, then
gcc/toplev.c for flag_complex_divide_method.
Andreas, just for curiosity, are you willing to rebuild your gcc
with flag_complex_divide_method = 1 and report???
Willing is not the problem. But I have only li
As you mentinon it if have missed the specilization at the end of
std_complex.h. Sorry. I still think that we should have and other
implementation for complex, but I cannot change the code
of __complex__ T in the complier.
Interestingly, it looks like the discussed improved algorithm is
*already* i
14 matches
Mail list logo
