On Fri, 8 Nov 2024, Richard Sandiford via Gcc wrote:
> We changed one of the AArch64-specific --params for GCC 14.
> Unfortunately, it seems that a lot of people were relying on the
> previous behaviour.
Umpf.
> Every --param is documented in the user-facing manual, so it's not
> surprising that
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:05 PM Thomas Koenig wrote:
>
> Hello world,
>
> J3, the US Fortran standards committee, has passed
> https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/24/24-179.txt
> which states (with a bit of an overabundance of
> clarity) that, in Fortran, it is possible special-case
> complex multipli
Am 13.11.24 um 15:55 schrieb Toon Moene:
Since the Fortran 95 Standard it does (in the current Standard: 7.4.3.2
Real type):
The real type includes a zero value. Processors that distinguish between
positive and negative zeros shall treat them as mathematically equivalent
• in all intrinsic
> So, I think we could ignore signed zeros (from the Fortran standard
> perspective)
>
> - for complex arithmetic, always
> - for real arithmetic, if none of the IEEE modules is USEd
That seems like a very backward-incompatible change to introduce :(
I might break a lot of existing codes.
FX
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 05:33:20PM +0100, Thomas Koenig wrote:
> Am 13.11.24 um 15:55 schrieb Toon Moene:
> >
> > Since the Fortran 95 Standard it does (in the current Standard: 7.4.3.2
> > Real type):
> >
> > The real type includes a zero value. Processors that distinguish between
> > positive a
Hello world,
J3, the US Fortran standards committee, has passed
https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/24/24-179.txt
which states (with a bit of an overabundance of
clarity) that, in Fortran, it is possible special-case
complex multiplication when one of the numbers is known
to have a zero component, fo
On 11/13/24 15:12, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:05 PM Thomas Koenig wrote:
Hello world,
J3, the US Fortran standards committee, has passed
https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/24/24-179.txt
which states (with a bit of an overabundance of
clarity) that, in Fortran, it is possibl
On 11/13/24 15:40, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:21 PM Toon Moene wrote:
On 11/13/24 15:12, Richard Biener wrote:
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:05 PM Thomas Koenig wrote:
Hello world,
J3, the US Fortran standards committee, has passed
https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/24/24-1
On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:21 PM Toon Moene wrote:
>
> On 11/13/24 15:12, Richard Biener wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Nov 13, 2024 at 3:05 PM Thomas Koenig wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello world,
> >>
> >> J3, the US Fortran standards committee, has passed
> >> https://j3-fortran.org/doc/year/24/24-179.txt
> >> whi
Hello,
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024, Thomas Koenig via Gcc wrote:
> Am 12.11.24 um 17:25 schrieb Michael Matz via Gcc:
>
> > If you think of float as
> > approximated reals, then yes, division by zero is undefined (not
> > somewhat undefined!).
>
> Depends on how you look at it.
>
> IEEE 754-2008, for
On Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:12:50 +0100
David Brown via Gcc wrote:
> Under what circumstances would you have code that :
...
> d) Would be perfectly happy with "x" having the value 2.225e-307 (or
> perhaps a little larger) and doing the division with that.
>
> I think what you really want to check i
On Mon, 11 Nov 2024 21:14:43 + (UTC)
Joseph Myers via Gcc wrote:
> On Sat, 9 Nov 2024, Sad Clouds via Gcc wrote:
>
> > Even though there is nothing unsafe here and comparison to floating
> > point 0.0 value is well defined.
>
> The point of the warning is that *if you are writing code that
> On Nov 12, 2024, at 01:51, Martin Uecker wrote:
>
> Am Montag, dem 07.10.2024 um 15:14 + schrieb Qing Zhao:
>>
>>> On Oct 7, 2024, at 10:13, Jakub Jelinek via Gcc wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 04, 2024 at 12:42:24AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Joseph Myers:
> The real qu
13 matches
Mail list logo
