public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug fortran/107753] gfortran returns NaN in complex divisions (x+x*I)/(x+x*I) and (x+x*I)/(x-x*I)
Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2022 22:31:56 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-107753-4-FCI5zDRNDG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-107753-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107753

--- Comment #15 from anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to kargl from comment #14)
> Comment #10 contains a simple timing measurement in from my Intel Core2 Duo
> based system.  gfortran with its current method (ie., -fcx-fortran-rules)
> takes 44.5 clock ticks for a complex division.
[...]
> ticks.  I haven't looked at what algorithm C uses, but I suspect its along
> the lines you suggest.

I may have misread the library implementation of complex division (libgcc2),
but it likely does really much more that we need for Fortran.  And some
of the overhead seems to come from doing many more divisions in the
library version than in the current gfortran variant.

> The question is likely do we break backwards
> compatibility and remove -fcx-fortran-rules or change when/how
> -fcx-fortran-rules applies (e.g., add it to -ffast-math?)

I would certainly not be happy breaking backwards compatibility,
but is there a precise definition of what the "cx-fortran-rules" are?

I had the silent hope that manipulating exponents of IEEE floats could be a
cheap operation, allowing for a cheaper solution than the expensive method
that gets really borderline cases better, although an unreasonable cost.

      parent reply	other threads:[~2022-12-07 22:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-11-18 19:32 [Bug fortran/107753] New: " weslley.pereira at ucdenver dot edu
2022-11-18 19:50 ` [Bug fortran/107753] " anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-18 20:50 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-18 21:26 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-18 22:05 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-18 23:24 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2022-11-18 23:32 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2022-11-18 23:45 ` weslley.pereira at ucdenver dot edu
2022-11-18 23:47 ` weslley.pereira at ucdenver dot edu
2022-11-19  0:25 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2022-11-19 19:11 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-19 20:14 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-20  0:54 ` sgk at troutmask dot apl.washington.edu
2022-12-07 21:16 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-07 21:50 ` kargl at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-07 22:31 ` anlauf at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]

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=bug-107753-4-FCI5zDRNDG@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --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).