> > Peeking at the implementation of the expand_complex_division() function > inside tree-complex.c I have compared the conditions for satisfying > the -fcx-limited-range and flag_isoc99 > condition. And thus I have some questions about the logics of it. > In esp. the following lines (starting at 1222 inside the file): > > IN A ROW. I guess it should be a return statement instead. Much like > in the case > of the multiply by intrinsic function. That's suspicious.
The break gets out of the inner switch statement and right after that is a return and not out of the if. > > break; > } > /* FALLTHRU */ > ================== > The intrinsic function got expanded... > > case 1: > ================== > And now we are expanding the supposedly a bit less precise version of > the division > directly behind it? This doesn't to be the same kind of "overflow > robustness logic" > as in the case of multiplication. The fall through is for non fp complex types, yes they exist in GCC and in GNU C. > Thus my question to whoever looked at this code close enough is: > > 1. Is the FALLTHRU really OK? yes, see above. Plus the fall through is only for non fp types. > 2. Shouldn't the logic when to decide which kind of implementation to > take > not look a bit more like in the multiplication case? It is the same in general anyways but division is the one that is different between flag_complex_method==0 and flag_complex_method==1. Thanks, Andrew Pinski
