Re: Complex numbers support: discussions summary

[Toon Moene <toon@moene.org>]

On 9/26/23 20:40, Toon Moene wrote:

> On 9/26/23 09:30, Richard Biener via Gcc wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, Sep 25, 2023 at 5:17 PM Sylvain Noiry via Gcc 
>> <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> 
>>> As I said at the end of the presentation, we have written a paper which
>>> explains
>>> our implementation in details. You can find it on the wiki page of the
>>> Cauldron
>>> (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/cauldron2023talks?action=AttachFile&do=view&target=Exposing+Complex+Numbers+to+Target+Back-ends+%28paper%29.pdf).
>>
>> Thanks for the detailed presentation at the Cauldron.
>>
>> My personal summary is that I'm less convinced delaying lowering is
>> the way to go.
> 
> Thanks Sylvain for the quick summary of the discussion - it helps a 
> great deal now that the discussion is still fresh in our memory.

I found time today to run some tests.

First of all, the result of the gcc test harness as applied to the top 
of the complex/kvx branch in the https://github.com/kalray/gcc repository:

https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-testresults/2023-October/797627.html

I think there are several complex failures here that are not in 
"standard" 12.2 release (for x86_64-linux-gnu).

I also compiled all of lapack-3.11.0 with that compiler and obtained the 
same results as with gcc/gfortran 13.2:

			-->   LAPACK TESTING SUMMARY  <--
		Processing LAPACK Testing output found in the TESTING directory
SUMMARY             	nb test run 	numerical error   	other error
================   	===========	=================	================
REAL             	1327023		0	(0.000%)	0	(0.000%)	
DOUBLE PRECISION	1300917		6	(0.000%)	0	(0.000%)	
COMPLEX          	786775		0	(0.000%)	0	(0.000%)	
COMPLEX16         	787842		0	(0.000%)	0	(0.000%)	

--> ALL PRECISIONS	4202557		6	(0.000%)	0	(0.000%)	

Kind regards,

-- 
Toon Moene - e-mail: toon@moene.org - phone: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG  Maartensdijk, The Netherlands