On 2/4/21 6:31 AM, Tam S. B. wrote:
`__cpp_size_t_suffix` is defined as 202006L, but the draft standard says
202011L: http://eel.is/c++draft/cpp.predefined#tab:cpp.predefined.ft-row-48
I looks like you're right. Both the latest draft and
https://isocpp.org/std/standing-documents/sd-6-sg10-fea
I pushed this patch to update changes to mention the C++23 flags and the size_t
literals.
Ed
commit bfc68f3f88406a07757d111a0f894426a6bc4522
Author: Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net <mailto:3dw...@verizon.net>>
Date: Wed Feb 3 14:23:00 2021 -0500
Mention C++23 flags
On 2/2/21 12:12 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 2/1/21 9:15 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 2/1/21 2:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 01:46:13PM -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+// { dg-do compile { target c++23 } }
+
+#include
+#include
+
+static_assert(std
On 2/1/21 2:23 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Mon, Feb 01, 2021 at 01:46:13PM -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
@@ -0,0 +1,8 @@
+// { dg-do compile { target c++23 } }
+
+#include
+#include
+
+static_assert(std::is_same_v);
+static_assert(std::is_same_v);
Shouldn't this be std::make_signed:
On 2/1/21 10:33 AM, Jason Merrill wrote:
On 1/30/21 6:22 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 1/27/21 3:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 04:39:30PM -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
This patch implements C++2a proposal P0330R2 Literal Suffixes for
ptrdiff_t
and size_t*. It'
On 1/27/21 3:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 04:39:30PM -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
This patch implements C++2a proposal P0330R2 Literal Suffixes for ptrdiff_t
and size_t*. It's not official yet but looks very likely to pass. It is
incomplete because I'm l
On 1/27/21 3:32 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 04:39:30PM -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
This patch implements C++2a proposal P0330R2 Literal Suffixes for ptrdiff_t
and size_t*. It's not official yet but looks very likely to pass. It is
incomplete because I'm l
On 10/15/20 7:21 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Ed,
In commit r232377 (aka 2be75957b80b640c0aac4356ab861edd0c2f1b9d in the
git repo) you added a new header to the include/precompiled directory.
That wasn't mentioned in the ChangeLog, wasn't in the patch posted to
https://gcc.gnu.org/legacy-ml/libstd
I missed a file in my recent patch for C++20 constexpr tuple. Bestrafe Mich.
Ed
2019-11-16 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
Repair the part of C++20 p1032 Misc constexpr bits.
* include/bits/uses_allocator.h (__uses_alloc0::_Sink::operaror=)
(__use_alloc(const _Alloc&)) : Conste
First of all, the redo of the iterator portion in response to
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2019-11/msg01467.html passed testing.
This patch contains constexpr char_traits. I also found an old extension
that had been left out of the constexpr bandwagon that I caught up.
This patch also
"works" and it might make useful fodder for the next round.
Ed
gcc/ChangeLog
2019-11-08 Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
Implement C++20 P1208R6 - source_location. Implement column with a
__builtin_COLUMN for both std and experimental. The std curr
On 9/9/19 5:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 05/09/19 15:45 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
Here is a patch to the libstdc++ docs re constexpr additions. They
reflect the latest macro assignments AFAICT.
Constexpr interator reqs are implemented in 9.1, the rest for 10.1.
Ok
On 9/9/19 5:38 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 06/09/19 18:08 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
As the title says.
was (correctly) delivered without comparison ops. so we chould
check off p1085.
Indeed, thanks!
This includes the status updates for constexpr lib diffs posted
Here is a patch to the libstdc++ docs re constexpr additions. They
reflect the latest macro assignments AFAICT.
Constexpr interator reqs are implemented in 9.1, the rest for 10.1.
Ok?
Should I bother adding the Constexpr interator requirements to the gcc-9
branch docs?
Ed
Index: doc/html/
On 8/20/19 6:14 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/08/19 22:39 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
The latest draft and I guess the above paper changed the macro names
for the C++20 constexpr lib featues.
__cpp_lib_constexpr_algorithms ->__cpp_lib_constexpr.
The __cpp_lib_conste
The latest draft and I guess the above paper changed the macro names for
the C++20 constexpr lib featues.
__cpp_lib_constexpr_algorithms ->__cpp_lib_constexpr.
This patch changes the name but not the date because I still have some
work to do before I can ship the "miscellaneous" constexpr mate
On 8/13/19 7:14 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 01/08/19 13:16 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
Greetings,
Here is a patch for C++20 p0879 - Constexpr for swap and swap related
functions.
This essentially constexprifies the rest of .
Built and tested with C++20 (and pre-c++20) on
On 8/6/19 11:30 AM, Steve Ellcey wrote:
Ed,
I have run into an ICE that I tracked down to this patch:
commit 02fefffe6b78c4c39169206aa40fb53f367ecba8
Author: emsr
Date: Thu Aug 1 15:25:42 2019 +
2019-08-01 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
Implement C++20 p0
On 8/1/19 3:45 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 01/08/19 11:47 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
On 8/1/19 6:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31/07/19 10:50 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
Here is the patch for
* Implement C++20 p0202 - Add constexpr Modifiers to
Greetings,
Here is a patch for C++20 p0879 - Constexpr for swap and swap related
functions.
This essentially constexprifies the rest of .
Built and tested with C++20 (and pre-c++20) on x86_64-linux.
Ok?
Regards,
Ed Smith-Rowland
2019-08-01 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.
On 8/1/19 6:56 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 31/07/19 10:50 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
Here is the patch for
* Implement C++20 p0202 - Add constexpr Modifiers to Functions in
and Headers.
* Implement C++20 p1023 - constexpr comparison operators for std::array.
Relative
Here is the patch for
* Implement C++20 p0202 - Add constexpr Modifiers to Functions in
and Headers.
* Implement C++20 p1023 - constexpr comparison operators for std::array.
Relative to the last effort it is rebased on more recent trunk and I
added to .
There's some chance that I'll have
On 7/6/19 3:55 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
Blargh!
But that's fine; the result of copy is not stored in a constexpr
variable, but the function return
is static_asserted so we have sufficiently tested that std::copy is
indeed constexpr-compatible
since it appears in a function that is evaluated
On 7/2/19 8:11 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
One more comment. In this:
+#if __cplusplus > 201703L \
+?? && defined(_GLIBCXX_HAVE_BUILTIN_IS_CONSTANT_EVALUATED)
+?? if (__builtin_is_constant_evaluated())
can be simplified to just:
#ifdef __cpp_lib_is_constant_evaluated
if (s
Gaius,
I missed the fact that there are two patch sets.?? Things built like a
charm.?? Testing now.
Thank you.
Ed
1: recipe for target 'stage2-bubble' failed
make[1]: *** [stage2-bubble] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory '/home/ed/obj_modula2'
Makefile:1002: recipe for target 'all' failed
make: *** [all] Error 2
--
Thanks,
Ed Smith-Rowland
On 6/27/19 1:06 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 at 19:55, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++
wrote:
I don't think this will work in a constant expression:
?? /// Assign @p __new_val to @p __obj and return its previous value.
?? template
+?? _GLIBCXX20_CONSTEXPR
?? i
On 6/27/19 11:41 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 26/06/19 19:13 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
Here is the first of three patches for C++20 constexpr library.
?? Implement C++20 p0202 - Add constexpr Modifiers to Functions
in and Headers.
??Implement C++20 p1023
=unix/-std=gnu++2a -k -j4
OK for trunk (after part 1 is in)?
Ed Smith-Rowland
2019-06-26 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
Implement C++20 p0879 - Constexpr for swap and swap related functions.
* include/bits/algorithmfwd.h (__cpp_lib_constexpr_swap_algo
=--target_board=unix/-std=gnu++2a -k -j4
OK for trunk?
Ed Smith-Rowland
2019-06-26 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
Implement C++20 p0202 - Add Constexpr Modifiers to Functions
in and Headers.
Implement C++20 p1023 - constexpr comparison operators for std:
On 6/10/19 2:43 AM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jun 2019 at 02:53, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote:
Darn it, I had those constexpr lib patches in tree.
Attached are what I just committed to gcc-9 and passes there. Those
std::copy didn't really add anything an
On 6/9/19 6:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 10/06/19 00:03 +0200, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Ed,
I had supplied the option for gnu++2a by hand and they passed.?? They
were not UNSUPPORTED.
I just added the dg-options (at very top) and reran the testsuite
without fancy tricks (except for gnu++2a).
On 6/8/19 4:28 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 08/06/19 12:05 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 6/7/19 11:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 01/06/19 15:40 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
On 6/1/19 2:42 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 21:09, Ed Smith-Rowland <
On 6/7/19 11:42 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 01/06/19 15:40 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
On 6/1/19 2:42 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 21:09, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
wrote:
On 5/31/19 6:29 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2
On 6/1/19 2:42 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 21:09, Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net> wrote:
On 5/31/19 6:29 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 01:24, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++
wrote:
Greetings,
Iterators for and are usabe in a con
On 5/31/19 6:29 PM, Ville Voutilainen wrote:
On Sat, 1 Jun 2019 at 01:24, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++
wrote:
Greetings,
Iterators for and are usabe in a constexpr context
since C++2017.
This just adds a compile test to make sure and check a box for C++20
p0858 - ConstexprIterator
Greetings,
Iterators for and are usabe in a constexpr context
since C++2017.
This just adds a compile test to make sure and check a box for C++20
p0858 - ConstexprIterator requirements.
Ed
2019-06-03 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
Test for C++20 p0858 - ConstexprIt
On 5/30/19 5:05 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
Greetings,
I was not quite able to finish this in for gcc9 but here is the patch
for:
?? Implement C++20 p0202 - Add Constexpr Modifiers to Functions
??in and Headers.
??Implement C++20 p1023 - constexpr comparison
concerns with the last patch attempts
[https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2019-03/msg00132.html].
The patch is large because of test cases but really just boils down to
adding constexpr for c++2a.
The patch passes for gnu++2a and pre-gnu++2a on x86_64-linux.
OK for trunk?
Ed Smith-Rowland
2019
aight from
libstdc++. This is the first patch. Next will be and then
a bit later.
It's pretty straightforward but others might have tips on configuration
(and anything else ;-)). Built and tested of x86_64-linux.
Ok?
Ed
2019-05-11 Ed Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net&g
On 3/29/19 12:39 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 12:02:48PM -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
This differs from the previous patch in actually testing constexpr :-\ and
in the addition of wrappers for __builtin_memmove and __builtin_memcmp that
supply constexpr branches if C++20
On 3/29/19 11:12 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 11:07:53AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 4:57 PM Ed Smith-Rowland via gcc-patches
wrote:
On 3/18/19 6:18 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 17/03/19 22:54 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
I'm
On 3/29/19 9:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 09:10:26AM -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via gcc-patches
wrote:
Greetings,
This patch implements C++20 constexpr for , , .
It's a large patch but only affects C++20 and the volume is mostly test
cases.
This differs from the pre
Greetings,
This patch implements C++20 constexpr for , , .
It's a large patch but only affects C++20 and the volume is mostly test
cases.
This differs from the previous patch in actually testing constexpr :-\
and in the addition of wrappers for __builtin_memmove and
__builtin_memcmp that su
On 3/19/19 4:57 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
On 3/18/19 6:18 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 17/03/19 22:54 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
Greetings,
This patch implements C++20 p0202 - Add Constexpr Modifiers to
Functions in and Headers
and C++20 p1023
On 3/18/19 6:18 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 17/03/19 22:54 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
Greetings,
This patch implements C++20 p0202 - Add Constexpr Modifiers to
Functions in and Headers
and C++20 p1023 - constexpr comparison operators for std::array.
The patch is
On 3/18/19 6:18 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 17/03/19 22:54 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland via libstdc++ wrote:
Greetings,
This patch implements C++20 p0202 - Add Constexpr Modifiers to
Functions in and Headers
and C++20 p1023 - constexpr comparison operators for std::array.
The patch is
Greetings,
This patch implements C++20 p0202 - Add Constexpr Modifiers to Functions
in and Headers
and C++20 p1023 - constexpr comparison operators for std::array.
The patch is large because of the testsuite additions. Basically, the
algorithms and the array comparison operators are all m
On 3/4/19 3:05 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 04/02/19 14:26 +, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24/01/19 14:50 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
PR libstdc++/88996 Implement P0439R0
Make std::memory_order a scoped enumeration.
* include/bits/atomic_base.h: For C++20 make memory_order a
This is actually PR libstdc++/86655.
Thank you for reminding me Andre.
I remove the throw for m > l and just return 0. This is also done for
sph_legendre.
This build and tests clean on x86_64-linux.
OK?
Ed
2018-03-04 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
PR libstdc++/86655
Greetings,
This makes memory_order in a scoped enum *only* for C++20.
This is built and tested on x86_64-linux.
OK?
Index: include/bits/atomic_base.h
===
--- include/bits/atomic_base.h (revision 268246)
+++ include/bits/atomic_
On 1/1/19 12:45 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
Hello,
In working on updating the copyright year notices for the GDB files,
I noticed something very minor regarding the patch which added the
file below (the same file was copied in gdb's testsuite); it looks
like the year range for one of the files is
Committed as obvious 266788.
Ed
2018-12-03 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
PR libstdc++/88341 - Complex norm doesn't compile with C++11
* include/std/complex (_S_do_it): Make C++20 constexpr.
* testsuite/26_numerics/complex/value_operations/pr88341.cc: New t
On 11/30/18 5:33 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/11/18 21:35 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Greetings,
This patch implements starts_with and ends_with for basic_string and
basic_string_view for C++20.
This was on my TODO list, thanks for taking care of it.
+#if __cplusplus > 2017
Greetings,
This patch implements starts_with and ends_with for basic_string and
basic_string_view for C++20.
This builds and tests cleanly on x86_64-linux.
Ed
2018-11-30 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
Implement P0457R2 String Prefix and Suffix Checking.
* incl
This version of erase_if/erase returning number erased actually build
and tests cleanly on x86_64-linux.
Is this what you has in mind for this? I basically return the number of
erased items for all the things
Ed
On 11/26/18 6:18 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24/11/18 13:54 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
All,
I's very late but uniform container erasure is, I think, the last
little tidbit to graduate from fundamentals/v2 to std at the last
meeting. I think it would be a shame not to nudge this
On 11/29/18 9:09 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 29/11/18 08:47 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Fixed with 266616.
Thanks!
Index: include/std/deque
===
--- include/std/deque (revision 266567)
+++ include/std/deque (working
On 11/28/18 7:25 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 28/11/18 12:12 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Index: testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/erasure.cc
===
--- testsuite/21_strings/basic_string/erasure.cc (nonexistent)
+++ testsuite
On 11/26/18 6:18 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 24/11/18 13:54 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
All,
I's very late but uniform container erasure is, I think, the last
little tidbit to graduate from fundamentals/v2 to std at the last
meeting. I think it would be a shame not to nudge this
All,
I's very late but uniform container erasure is, I think, the last little
tidbit to graduate from fundamentals/v2 to std at the last meeting. I
think it would be a shame not to nudge this into gcc-9. The routines
are very short so I just copied them. Ditto the testcases (with
adjustment
On 11/19/18 6:13 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 16/11/18 19:39 -0500, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
@@ -322,67 +323,43 @@
//@{
/// Return new complex value @a x plus @a y.
template
- inline complex<_Tp>
+ inline _GLIBCXX20_CONSTEXPR complex<_Tp>
operator+(const compl
On 11/16/18 3:53 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 11/16/18 12:38 PM, Daniel Krügler wrote:
Am Fr., 16. Nov. 2018 um 18:13 Uhr schrieb Ed Smith-Rowland
<3dw...@verizon.net>:
Greetings,
This is late but I wanted to put it out there just to finish a thing.
It's fairly straightforward c
On 11/16/18 5:32 PM, Michele Pezzutti wrote:
Hi.
My Copyright assignment process is complete (done in Feb 2018).
Michele
On 16/11/2018 18:23, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
All,
This patch has been in my queue for a while.
I believe it is waiting on Copyright assignment for Michele. Is this
On 11/16/18 12:38 PM, Daniel Krügler wrote:
Am Fr., 16. Nov. 2018 um 18:13 Uhr schrieb Ed Smith-Rowland
<3dw...@verizon.net>:
Greetings,
This is late but I wanted to put it out there just to finish a thing.
It's fairly straightforward constexpr of operators and some simple
functi
All,
This patch has been in my queue for a while.
I believe it is waiting on Copyright assignment for Michele. Is this
still true?
Ed
2018-11-16 Michele Pezzutti
Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
PR libstdc++/83566 - cyl_bessel_j returns wrong result for x>1
Greetings,
This is late but I wanted to put it out there just to finish a thing.
It's fairly straightforward constexpr of operators and some simple
functions for std::complex.
The only thing that jumped out was the norm function. We had this:
struct _Norm_helper
{
template
On 11/5/18 1:19 PM, Joseph Myers wrote:
On Sun, 4 Nov 2018, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
I looked in glibc. Unfortunately, I see how they have the same mistake:
glibc/math/w_tgammal_compat.c:
long double
__tgammal(long double x)
{
int local_signgam;
long double y
On 11/3/18 10:09 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/23/18 7:45 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Greetings,
This is an almost trivial patch to get the correct sign for tgammaq.
I don't have a testcase as I don't know where to put one.
OK?
Ed Smith-Rowland
tgammaq.CL
2018-10-24 Edward Smi
On 11/3/18 10:09 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
On 10/23/18 7:45 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
Greetings,
This is an almost trivial patch to get the correct sign for tgammaq.
I don't have a testcase as I don't know where to put one.
OK?
Ed Smith-Rowland
tgammaq.CL
2018-10-24 Edward Smi
Greetings,
This is an almost trivial patch to get the correct sign for tgammaq.
I don't have a testcase as I don't know where to put one.
OK?
Ed Smith-Rowland
2018-10-24 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
PR libquadmath/68686
* math/tgammaq.c: Correct sign for n
thinking of making this feature available as an extension to all of
C/C++ perhaps with appropriate pedwarn.
Opinions?
Ed Smith-Rowland
[*] http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2018/p0330r2.html
Index: gcc/c-family/c-cppbuiltin.c
==
On 06/15/2018 11:52 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
C++20 adds a header, which should define all the library
feature test macros, as well as implementation-specific macros like
_GLIBCXX_RELEASE and __GLIBCXX__.
We should decide whether to implement by simply including
and then adding the feature t
which always causes a failure:
+FAIL:
tr1/5_numerical_facilities/special_functions/02_assoc_legendre/check_value.cc
(test for excess errors)
Excess errors:
Undefined first referenced
symbol in file
main/usr/l
On 05/10/2018 01:44 PM, Rainer Orth wrote:
Hi Ed,
2018-05-07 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
PR libstdc++/83140 - assoc_legendre returns negated value when m is
odd
* include/tr1/legendre_function.tcc (__assoc_legendre_p): Add
__phase
argument defaulted to +1. Doxy
All,
We could consider dropping the TR1 support, and just provide these
functions for ISO/IEC 29124:2010 in C++11 (or later) and for C++17.
But that decision should be taken separately, and should only happen
on trunk anyway so we need to use _Tp(+1) here.
I am in favour of splitting new versi
On 05/09/2018 05:30 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 07/05/18 12:39 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
All,
We were using a different convention for P_l^m assoc_legendre(int l,
int m, FloatTp x)
- the so-called Condon-Shortley convention which includes (-1)^m.
This unfortunately is common
All,
We were using a different convention for P_l^m assoc_legendre(int l, int
m, FloatTp x)
- the so-called Condon-Shortley convention which includes (-1)^m.
This unfortunately is common.
This factor is taken out to match the standard. The underlying __detail
code has an arg that allows
Michele,
So I think the patch you had plus tests
testsuite/tr1/5_numerical_facilities/special_functions/09_cyl_bessel_j/check_value.cc
testsuite/tr1/5_numerical_facilities/special_functions/11_cyl_neumann/check_value.cc
plus I'd like the new tests also in
testsuite/special_functions/08_cyl_bess
On 01/08/2018 02:08 PM, Michele Pezzutti wrote:
Formatting fixed.
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/tr1/bessel_function.tcc
b/libstdc++-v3/include/tr1/bessel_function.tcc
index 7ac733d..5f8fc9f 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/tr1/bessel_function.tcc
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/tr1/bessel_func
On 04/26/2017 05:16 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 26/04/17 11:14 +0200, Paolo Carlini wrote:
.. or maybe using the wrong constant only impacts the performance?!?
Yes, I think so. I did some very simple sanity tests and the numbers
were identical before and after.
I was backporting this and
I'm thinking of going back on my choice not to fix special function bugs
on 7.
These build and test clean on gcc-7.
OK?
2018-04-30 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
PR libstdc++/pr66689 - comp_ellint_3 and ellint_3 return garbage values
* include/tr1/ell_integral.tc
On 01/04/2018 03:54 PM, Michele Pezzutti wrote:
On 01/04/2018 06:16 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
On 01/03/2018 02:49 PM, Michele Pezzutti wrote:
Hi.
On 01/02/2018 05:43 PM, Michele Pezzutti wrote:
On 01/02/2018 02:28 AM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
I like the patch.
I have a similar one in
On 01/03/2018 02:49 PM, Michele Pezzutti wrote:
Hi.
On 01/02/2018 05:43 PM, Michele Pezzutti wrote:
On 01/02/2018 02:28 AM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
I like the patch.
I have a similar one in the tr29124 branch.
Anyway, I got held up and I think it's good to have new folks
looking
On 01/02/2018 04:41 PM, Michele Pezzutti wrote:
On 01/02/2018 05:59 PM, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
OK,
on *third* look summing up to k = nu/2 at minimum will a achieve the
result of not blowing up the asymptotic series:
nu^2 - (2k-1)^2. And it will do that without a check.
This stopping
On 12/31/2017 09:38 PM, Michele Pezzutti wrote:
Hi.
This patch intends to fix Bug 83566 - cyl_bessel_j returns wrong
result for x>1000 for high orders.
Seehttps://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83566 forissue
description.
* libstdc++-v3/include/tr1/bessel_function.tcc
Series
On 12/31/2017 09:38 PM, Michele Pezzutti wrote:
Hi.
This patch intends to fix Bug 83566 - cyl_bessel_j returns wrong
result for x>1000 for high orders.
Seehttps://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83566 forissue
description.
* libstdc++-v3/include/tr1/bessel_function.tcc
Series
On 12/31/2017 09:38 PM, Michele Pezzutti wrote:
Hi.
This patch intends to fix Bug 83566 - cyl_bessel_j returns wrong
result for x>1000 for high orders.
Seehttps://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83566 forissue
description.
* libstdc++-v3/include/tr1/bessel_function.tcc
Series
Here is the final patch fir libstdc++ Airy functions...
2017-11-18 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
* include/bits/specfun.h: Expose airy_ai and airy_bi.
* include/tr1/modified_bessel_func.tcc: Treat NaN and inf arg, return.
* testsuite/ext/special_functions/ai
On 11/17/2017 03:54 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
Hmm, you're probably right. I'd be tempted to though.
I had an idea. What about a macro _GLIBCXX_ELLINT_3_POS_NU or something
that:
1. would allow users to detect which convention is on by default.
2. They could set or unset to get the other c
Here is a patch for tammaq for negative argument pr68686.
I know about depending on ports from upstream but this was done recently
and this (tgammaq) was left out.
This patch is basically a one-liner.
I have test cases but libquadmath doesn't have a testsuite.
One test just shows alternating
Here is a patch for
PR libstdc++/68397 std::tr1::expint fails in __expint_En_cont_frac
for some long double arguments due to low __max_iter value.
The proposed resolution of increasing the max_iter to 1000 is a simple
and obvious fix.
Built and tested on x86_64-linux.
OK?
Ed
2017-04-2
On 10/26/2016 05:01 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
On 25/10/16 08:20 -0400, Ed Smith-Rowland wrote:
+explicit
+param_type(_RealType __radius = _RealType(1))
+: _M_radius(__radius)
+{
+ _GLIBCXX_DEBUG_ASSERT(_M_radius > _RealType(0));
Nowadays we're able to do
All,
Here is the library extension for uniform_inside _sphere_distribution.
It works from discs and has been tested up through 12-dimentional spheres.
The patch dispatches to rejection for Dim<8, transform otherwise as
discussed earlier.
Builds and tests cleanly on x86_64-linux.
OK?
Ed
Inde
This patch defines
operator""zu(unsigned long long __n)
for size_t literals.
for (auto k = 0zul; k < v.size(); ++k)
...
Testing on x86-64-linux is finishing but I'm past these tests.
OK?
Ed
2016-07-21 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
Implement C++17 P0330 size_t
OK for trunk, thanks.
I didn't see a feature test in any of the SD-6 papers or P0025.
p0096r3 proposes __cpp_lib_clamp = 201603.
I added the feature macro and committed the attached as 238383.
Thanks,
Ed
2016-07-15 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
Implement C++17 P002
Here is an implementation of P0025
An algorithm to "clamp" a value between a pair of boundary values.
Testing is almost finished - looks good so far.
OK if testing passes?
I didn't see a feature test in any of the SD-6 papers or P0025.
2016-07-15 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
Since the default is C++14 it seems apropos to *not* treat that C++
version thusly in the warning in libstdc++.
Ed
OK for trunk? And maybe some 6 branch later?
2016-04-17 Edward Smith-Rowland <3dw...@verizon.net>
* include/bits/c++14_warning.h: Do not refer C++14 as experimental.
I wanted to ship the TR29124 special math functions in libstdc++ with
some documentation.
More could be done but this covers the function definitions, argument
ranges, template parms, and arguments.
There is a little mainpage with some overview, history, biblio, and links.
2016-04-08 Edward Sm
On 03/11/2016 10:55 AM, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
The change approved in Jacksonville was to only add the special
functions to and not
That's easy.
OK, since they changed that and the macro and made it nonconditional I
should also drop the old-style macros __WANT_MATH_CANNEVERREMEMBER__ and
th
1 - 100 of 334 matches
Mail list logo
