[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2019 19:28:13 -0400
From: Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org>
To: musl@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: Patch for cacosh
On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 09:57:17PM +0000, Michael Morrell wrote:
> Running the gcc validation suite, I noticed that
> gfortran.dg/complex_intrinsic_5.f90 was failing when using MUSL.
>
> I tracked it down to the cacosh routines not getting the correct
> result when the imaginary part of the argument was negative.
>
> Attached is a patch to fix this.
Thanks!
> diff --git a/src/complex/cacosh.c b/src/complex/cacosh.c
> index 8c68cb01..0b598052 100644
> --- a/src/complex/cacosh.c
> +++ b/src/complex/cacosh.c
> @@ -4,6 +4,9 @@
>
> double complex cacosh(double complex z)
> {
> + _Bool zineg = cimag(z) < 0;
> +
I think this fails to give the desired result for negative zero.
Should probably be signbit(cimag(z)) or similar.
If there's a way to adjust the input to cacos to avoid having to patch
up after it returns based on a flag saved before the call, that would
make it more efficient I think (no need to spill/reload), but it's not
a big deal if not.
Also, as a style matter, musl codebase generally doesn't use _Bool;
rather just int for flags/boolean values.
Rich
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
