On 11/19/18 4:59 AM, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
[moved from gmp-devel]
Richard Biener writes:
For
#include
int main()
{
_Complex double x;
__real x = 3.09126495087690770626068115234375e+8;
__imag x = -4.045689747817175388336181640625e+8;
volatile _Complex
On 2018-11-19 15:26:00 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> > AFAIK, GCC already changes the exponent range to the binary64 one
> > (the lack of subnormals is not an issue, because in case of underflow,
> > GCC ignores the computations done with MPFR).
>
> G
On 11/19/18 5:40 AM, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
Richard Biener writes:
> __real x = 3.09126495087690770626068115234375e+8;
> __imag x = -4.045689747817175388336181640625e+8;
> volatile _Complex double y = ctan (x);
> return 0;
> }
>
> If we get a test case s
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Vincent Lefevre wrote:
> On 2018-11-19 14:17:13 +0100, Niels Möller wrote:
> > You might want to add an entry for "Exponent range" to the concept index
> > in the manual.
>
> The concept index already has "Exponent", and the corresponding
> paragraph is:
>
>An “exponent”
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Niels Möller wrote:
> Vincent Lefevre writes:
>
> > MPFR has a bounded (user configurable) exponent range, with underflow
> > and overflow exceptions for out-of-range results, like in IEEE 754.
>
> Good! I didn't find that in the manual until I knew the phrase to search
> f
On 2018-11-19 14:17:13 +0100, Niels Möller wrote:
> You might want to add an entry for "Exponent range" to the concept index
> in the manual.
The concept index already has "Exponent", and the corresponding
paragraph is:
An “exponent” is a component of a regular floating-point number. Its
C da
Hello all,
On Mon, Nov 19, 2018 at 12:37:16PM +0100, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
> I'll leave this up to the mpc maintainers.
indeed I suggest to continue the discussion only on the mpc mailing list;
this is clearly not a bug of gmp.
> > I simplified your test case using 1 as the real part and an
Vincent Lefevre writes:
> MPFR has a bounded (user configurable) exponent range, with underflow
> and overflow exceptions for out-of-range results, like in IEEE 754.
Good! I didn't find that in the manual until I knew the phrase to search
for. It's in
https://www.mpfr.org/mpfr-current/mpfr.html#
On 2018-11-19 11:14:49 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
[...]
> Breakpoint 1, mpc_tan (rop=0x7fffdd50, op=0x7fffdd50, rnd=0)
> at /space/rguenther/src/svn/trunk2/mpc/src/tan.c:189
> 189 prec += mpc_ceil_log2 (prec) + err;
> $29 = 303084
> $30 = 303084
> ...
>
> So somehow err end
On 2018-11-19 12:49:12 +0100, Richard Biener wrote:
> I see. So I guess one issue might be that mpfr numbers have a
> precision (mantissa bits?) but no restriction on the exponent?
MPFR has a bounded (user configurable) exponent range, with underflow
and overflow exceptions for out-of-range resul
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> :/ But then with GCC we want deterministic behavior -- ISL
> added some "computation budget" and error reporting if that was
> taken up. Maybe gmp/mpfr/mpc could consider adding such a thing
> (reporting budget
Richard Biener writes:
:/ But then with GCC we want deterministic behavior -- ISL
added some "computation budget" and error reporting if that was
taken up. Maybe gmp/mpfr/mpc could consider adding such a thing
(reporting budget overruns via a signal could be acceptable if
the API chur
t...@gmplib.org (Torbjörn Granlund) writes:
I simplified your test case using 1 as the real part and an integer for
the imaginary part. With the real part set to 1, the computation
finishes in about 10 seconds, with every doubling of it the runtime
almost triples. (If my observation
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> > __real x = 3.09126495087690770626068115234375e+8;
> > __imag x = -4.045689747817175388336181640625e+8;
> > volatile _Complex double y = ctan (x);
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > If we get a
Richard Biener writes:
> __real x = 3.09126495087690770626068115234375e+8;
> __imag x = -4.045689747817175388336181640625e+8;
> volatile _Complex double y = ctan (x);
> return 0;
> }
>
> If we get a test case somewhat closer to GMP, then it is likely
> somebody
On Mon, 19 Nov 2018, Torbjörn Granlund wrote:
> [moved from gmp-devel]
>
>
> Richard Biener writes:
>
> For
> >
> #include
> >
> int main()
> {
> _Complex double x;
> __real x = 3.09126495087690770626068115234375e+8;
> __imag x = -4.045689747817175388336181640625e+8;
>
[moved from gmp-devel]
Richard Biener writes:
For
>
#include
>
int main()
{
_Complex double x;
__real x = 3.09126495087690770626068115234375e+8;
__imag x = -4.045689747817175388336181640625e+8;
volatile _Complex double y = ctan (x);
return 0;
}
If we get a test c
17 matches
Mail list logo
