http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29335
Jackie Rosen jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
--- Comment #39 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-31 15:06 ---
Subject: Bug 29335
Author: ghazi
Date: Wed Jan 31 15:06:19 2007
New Revision: 121423
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=121423
Log:
PR middle-end/29335
* builtins.c
--- Comment #38 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2007-01-20 00:33 ---
Subject: Bug 29335
Author: ghazi
Date: Sat Jan 20 00:33:00 2007
New Revision: 120993
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120993
Log:
PR middle-end/29335
* builtins.c
--- Comment #36 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-26 19:03 ---
Subject: Bug 29335
Author: ghazi
Date: Tue Dec 26 19:03:17 2006
New Revision: 120211
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=120211
Log:
PR middle-end/29335
* builtins.c (do_mpfr_arg1,
--- Comment #37 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-26 19:13 ---
Done.
Remaining functions (Bessel lgamma) await implementation in MPFR and marked
for PR30250 PR30251.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #35 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-18 14:53 ---
Mine, obviously.
Almost done, targetted to gcc-4.3.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #35 from chaoyingfu at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-30 19:44
---
Subject: Bug 29335
Author: chaoyingfu
Date: Thu Nov 30 19:43:57 2006
New Revision: 119376
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=119376
Log:
Merged revisions 118384-118452 via svnmerge from
--- Comment #34 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-07 02:46 ---
(In reply to comment #33)
Okay, sounds fine. Would this make it into 2.2.1 or 2.3?
For compatibility reasons (i.e. the 2.2.x versions must have the same
interface), this can only be in 2.3.0.
And do you have
--- Comment #33 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2006-11-05 23:27 ---
(In reply to comment #32)
(In reply to comment #31)
(In reply to comment #30)
So, I don't think a mpfr_signgam alone would really be useful. So, I think
that
choice 2 would be better.
Okay, sounds fine.
--- Comment #30 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 14:41 ---
(In reply to comment #28)
(In reply to comment #27)
It's likely that I'll end up doing it, so would you please tell me how?
According to the C rationale (I haven't checked), the sign of gamma(x) is -1
if
[iff]
--- Comment #31 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2006-11-02 15:57 ---
(In reply to comment #30)
So, I don't think a mpfr_signgam alone would really be useful. So, I think that
choice 2 would be better.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29335
--- Comment #32 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 22:44 ---
(In reply to comment #31)
(In reply to comment #30)
So, I don't think a mpfr_signgam alone would really be useful. So, I think
that
choice 2 would be better.
Okay, sounds fine. Would this make it into 2.2.1 or
--- Comment #29 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-11-02 03:21 ---
Subject: Bug 29335
Author: ghazi
Date: Thu Nov 2 03:20:49 2006
New Revision: 118409
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118409
Log:
PR middle-end/29335
* builtins.c
--- Comment #26 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2006-10-31 09:54 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
As I think about it more, I'm leaning toward having a new function
mpfr_lgamma.
This is because if we want this mpfr function to mimic the behavior of
lgamma,
we need some mechanism to
--- Comment #27 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-31 20:08 ---
(In reply to comment #26)
Yes, it's true that it is useful to have this value. But determining it
separately is quite easy, without taking a noticeable additional time in
average.
It's likely that I'll end up
--- Comment #28 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2006-10-31 22:15 ---
(In reply to comment #27)
It's likely that I'll end up doing it, so would you please tell me how?
According to the C rationale (I haven't checked), the sign of gamma(x) is -1 if
[iff] x 0 remainder(floor(x), 2) !=
--- Comment #24 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-30 20:22 ---
Subject: Bug 29335
Author: ghazi
Date: Mon Oct 30 20:21:59 2006
New Revision: 118200
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118200
Log:
PR middle-end/29335
* builtins.c
--- Comment #25 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-31 03:14 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
(In reply to comment #17)
This is because MPFR defines
lngamma as log(gamma(x)) while the C standard defines it as log|gamma(x)|. I
wonder if this should be regarded as a bug or if a new
--- Comment #18 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2006-10-28 09:07 ---
(In reply to comment #17)
Yes, I can reproduce the NaN. In fact, any negative value
gives a NaN.
Not any negative value, but in lngamma.c:
/* if x 0 and -2k-1 = x = -2k, then lngamma(x) = NaN */
probably
--- Comment #19 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-28 13:28 ---
(In reply to comment #18)
(In reply to comment #17)
Yes, I can reproduce the NaN. In fact, any negative value
gives a NaN.
Not any negative value, but in lngamma.c:
/* if x 0 and -2k-1 = x = -2k, then
--- Comment #20 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2006-10-28 14:05 ---
(In reply to comment #19)
The documenation in MPFR says:
-- Function: int mpfr_lngamma (mpfr_t ROP, mpfr_t OP, mp_rnd_t RND)
Set ROP to the value of the Gamma function on OP, and its
logarithm
--- Comment #21 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-28 16:03 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
I agree. And I think that none of the MPFR developers were aware of this
problem (I didn't notice the difference when I was looking for C functions
that were missing in MPFR).
Since you
--- Comment #22 from vincent at vinc17 dot org 2006-10-28 16:58 ---
(In reply to comment #21)
Since you mentioned C functions missing in MPFR, what are your plans for the
Bessel functions? I'd like to hook up builtins j0/j1/jn/y0/y1/yn. Thanks.
They're in the TODO, but there are no
--- Comment #23 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-29 02:02 ---
Subject: Bug 29335
Author: ghazi
Date: Sun Oct 29 02:02:10 2006
New Revision: 118129
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118129
Log:
PR middle-end/29335
* builtins.c (do_mpfr_arg2,
--- Comment #16 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-28 03:20 ---
I'm getting wierd NaN results when I hook up __builtin_lgamma to mpfr_lngamma.
I can expose the problem using a standlone C program calling mpfr like so.
Results are first, C testcase is second. Now I know
--- Comment #17 from sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-10-28 03:48 ---
Subject: Re: transcendental functions with constant arguments should be
resolved at compile-time
On Sat, Oct 28, 2006 at 03:20:11AM -, ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
---
--- Comment #15 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-25 20:44 ---
Subject: Bug 29335
Author: ghazi
Date: Wed Oct 25 20:44:09 2006
New Revision: 118042
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=118042
Log:
PR middle-end/29335
* builtins.c
--- Comment #13 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-23 20:25 ---
Subject: Bug 29335
Author: ghazi
Date: Mon Oct 23 20:24:55 2006
New Revision: 117983
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gccview=revrev=117983
Log:
PR middle-end/29335
* builtins.c
--- Comment #12 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-20 15:53 ---
Third patch revision posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg01039.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #10 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 16:12 ---
No longer relying on PR29405. Instead we'll force the person building GCC to
acquire GMP/MPFR themselves.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #11 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-14 16:13 ---
Updated patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg00757.html
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #9 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-09 17:16 ---
I decided to explore including GMP/MPFR in the GCC tree. Dependency PR 29405
opened to track that enhancement.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
--- Comment #8 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-07 14:07 ---
Patch posted here:
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2006-10/msg00360.html
Need to decide whether we're including GMP/MPFR in GCC repo or we need
configure goo to detect if we have it.
--
ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot
--- Comment #3 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-06 13:25 ---
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #0)
1. Whether a certain minimum version of GMP/MPFR is required to avoid known
bugs, etc.
See my recent patch to toplevel configure.in. THe minimum required
--- Comment #4 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-06 14:40 ---
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #0)
1. Whether a certain minimum version of GMP/MPFR is required to
avoid known bugs, etc.
See my recent patch to toplevel configure.in.
--- Comment #5 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-06 15:36 ---
(In reply to comment #4)
(In reply to comment #3)
(In reply to comment #2)
(In reply to comment #0)
idea of what mpfr can do. My main area of concern right now is converting
between gcc's REAL_VALUE_TYPE
--- Comment #6 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-06 17:03 ---
There is mpfr_get_ld(), which converts to a long double. If the data type
never exceeds the properties of long double, then one may be able to
use mpfr_get_ld() and then fold_convert() the result to the proper
--- Comment #7 from ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-07 02:04 ---
(In reply to comment #6)
There is mpfr_get_ld(), which converts to a long double. If the data type
never exceeds the properties of long double, then one may be able to
use mpfr_get_ld() and then
--- Comment #2 from kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-05 17:54 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
1. Whether a certain minimum version of GMP/MPFR is required to avoid known
bugs, etc.
See my recent patch to toplevel configure.in. THe minimum required
versions should be gmp-4.1.x
--- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-10-05 05:11 ---
Confirmed.
3. Whether GMP/MPFR works on all the platforms/configurations that GCC
supports. Are we ready to require a GMP/MPFR port for every port of GCC?
As far as I know there is GMP port to all hosts that
40 matches
Mail list logo