public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "vincent at vinc17 dot org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug middle-end/29335] transcendental functions with constant arguments should be resolved at compile-time
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:15:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061031221519.31277.qmail@sourceware.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-29335-578@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>



------- Comment #28 from vincent at vinc17 dot org  2006-10-31 22:15 -------
(In reply to comment #27)
> It's likely that I'll end up doing it, so would you please tell me how?

According to the C rationale (I haven't checked), the sign of gamma(x) is -1 if
[iff] x < 0 && remainder(floor(x), 2) != 0. But if x is a non-positive integer,
the sign of gamma(x) isn't defined. Handle these cases first.

The test x < 0 is easy to do. In MPFR, you can compute floor(x) (or trunc(x))
with the precision min(PREC(x),max(EXP(x),MPFR_PREC_MIN)), but then, there's no
direct function to decide whether the result is even or odd (I thought we added
this, but this isn't the case). The solution can be to divide x by 2 (this is
exact, except in case of underflow) and call mpfr_frac directly. If the result
is between -0.5 and 0, then gamma(x) is negative. If the result is between -1
and -0.5, then gamma(x) is positive. So, a 2-bit precision for mpfr_frac should
be sufficient (as -0.5 is representable in this precision), but choose a
directed rounding (not GMP_RNDN) for that. Then you can just do a comparison
with -0.5; the case of equality with -0.5 depends on the chosen rounding (if
you obtain -0.5, then it is an inexact result since x is not an integer). For
instance, if you choose GMP_RNDZ, then a result > -0.5 means that gamma(x) is
negative, and a result <= -0.5 means that gamma(x) is positive.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=29335


  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-10-31 22:15 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-10-03 16:48 [Bug middle-end/29335] New: " ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-05  5:11 ` [Bug middle-end/29335] " pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-05 17:54 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-06 13:25 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-06 14:40 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-06 15:36 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-06 17:03 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-07  2:05 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-07 14:08 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-09 17:16 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-14 16:12 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-14 16:14 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-20 15:54 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-23 20:25 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-24 17:45 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-25 20:44 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-28  3:20 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-28  3:48 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl dot washington dot edu
2006-10-28  9:07 ` vincent at vinc17 dot org
2006-10-28 13:29 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-28 14:06 ` vincent at vinc17 dot org
2006-10-28 16:04 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-28 16:58 ` vincent at vinc17 dot org
2006-10-29  2:02 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-30 20:22 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-31  3:14 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-31  9:55 ` vincent at vinc17 dot org
2006-10-31 20:09 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-10-31 22:15 ` vincent at vinc17 dot org [this message]
2006-11-02  3:21 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-02 14:41 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-02 15:57 ` vincent at vinc17 dot org
2006-11-02 22:44 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-05 23:27 ` vincent at vinc17 dot org
2006-11-07  2:46 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-11-30 19:45 ` chaoyingfu at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-18 14:54 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-26 19:03 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2006-12-26 19:13 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-20  0:33 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
2007-01-31 15:06 ` ghazi at gcc dot gnu dot org
     [not found] <bug-29335-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
2014-02-16 10:00 ` jackie.rosen at hushmail dot com

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20061031221519.31277.qmail@sourceware.org \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).