https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #10 from Marc Glisse ---
Flags like -ftrapping-math can prevent gcc from folding at compile-time when
the result is infinite (or maybe it always refuses to fold in that case). In
your example, gcc generates a runtime call to __muldc3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
Paul Zimmermann changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zimmerma+gcc at loria dot fr
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
boger at us dot ibm.com changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||boger at us dot ibm.com
---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #6 from boger at us dot ibm.com ---
If the last comment is true, does that mean the fold_const.c file in gcc should
be built in a way so that it doesn't use the fma, like using some kind of
option during the build of gcc at least for
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
David Edelsohn dje at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|ppc64-ibm-linux,|s390x-ibm-linux,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #8 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to boger from comment #6)
If the last comment is true, does that mean the fold_const.c file in gcc
should be built in a way so that it doesn't use the fma, like using
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #2 from Richard Biener rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think that it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis whether the
runtime complex division routine is precise enough. But yes, you
generally cannot expect constant folding
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #3 from Andreas Krebbel krebbel at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I'll keep the bugreport open with low prio. If I find the time I will at least
try to understand what's going on before closing it.
The testcase is extracted from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Could this because of the use of fma for s390 and PPC inside the division code?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60181
--- Comment #1 from joseph at codesourcery dot com joseph at codesourcery dot
com ---
There are no specified accuracy requirements for complex multiplication /
division, even under Annex G (parts of which - imaginary types in
particular - are
10 matches
Mail list logo