From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2110 invoked by alias); 21 Nov 2005 22:53:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 2078 invoked by uid 48); 21 Nov 2005 22:53:43 -0000 Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 22:53:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20051121225343.2077.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug libfortran/24903] dotprod should use conj? In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg03056.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Comment #3 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-21 22:53 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > I'm ready to do that, but since complex numbers in C are always a pain, I > want to know: are we sure that conj/conjf/conjl are *always* available? I > mean, are they part of the things gcc provides even if there is no library > support for them in the runtime libm? Hmm, I have to think about that but you can always use the GCC extension :) as mentioned before. I think the builtin version of conj/conjf/conjl (__builtin_conj/__builtin_conjf/__builtin_conjl) is always expanded to CONJ_EXPR but I could be wrong. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=24903