[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2014-02-16 Thread jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29335 Jackie Rosen jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com changed: What|Removed |Added CC|

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2007-01-31 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2007-01-19 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-12-26 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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,

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-12-26 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-12-18 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-11-30 Thread chaoyingfu at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-11-06 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-11-05 Thread vincent at vinc17 dot org
--- 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.

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-11-02 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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]

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-11-02 Thread vincent at vinc17 dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-11-02 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-11-01 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-31 Thread vincent at vinc17 dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-31 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-31 Thread vincent at vinc17 dot org
--- 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) !=

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-30 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-30 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-28 Thread vincent at vinc17 dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-28 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-28 Thread vincent at vinc17 dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-28 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-28 Thread vincent at vinc17 dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-28 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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,

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-27 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-27 Thread sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
--- 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: ---

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-25 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-23 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-20 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-14 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-14 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-09 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-07 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-06 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-06 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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.

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-06 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-06 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-06 Thread ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-05 Thread kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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

[Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time

2006-10-04 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
--- 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