This significantly simplifies the implementation and improves the codegen. The only downside is that the accuracy can be marginally worse, but that is up to the compiler to decide with this change, which means is can be controlled by compiler flags.
Details
Details
- Reviewers
- None
- Group Reviewers
Restricted Project
Diff Detail
Diff Detail
- Repository
- rG LLVM Github Monorepo
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
Can you modify the CI file to run with a limited number of configurations, but enable all platform.
Also fix the non floating point test to be fixed.
That way I can get a better view of the impact of the changes.
| libcxx/test/std/numerics/complex.number/complex.member.ops/divide_equal_complex.pass.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 29–30 | I would like to test with an epsion and not >=. | |
Comment Actions
I think this is the right approach to implement floating-point complex. We should let the compiler do the work whenever we can. If the result is "not good enough", then that's something we should take to the compiler folks (probably compiler-rt) instead.
Also, this is how libstdc++ implements their std::complex operations, so it's not like we're doing something crazy here. The need to change tests makes me a tiny bit uncomfortable, but in reality I think the tests should have been written that way from the start -- comparing floating point values for equality is a well known anti pattern.
So this roughly looks good to me but I'd like to see again after updating with the comments and green CI.
| libcxx/test/std/numerics/complex.number/complex.member.ops/divide_equal_complex.pass.cpp | ||
|---|---|---|
| 29–30 | Yeah we should define a function to describe the fact that the value is "equal" (or "within the tolerance") instead of explicitly checking >= and <=. | |
| libcxx/test/std/numerics/complex.number/complex.ops/complex_divide_complex.pass.cpp | ||
| 15 | Is this still required? Applies here and in the other complex tests I guess. | |