Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:44:54 -0500 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith <stephen@missouri.edu> To: freebsd-numerics@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Complex arg-trig functions Message-ID: <504FF726.9060001@missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: <504D3CCD.2050006@missouri.edu> References: <5017111E.6060003@missouri.edu> <501C361D.4010807@missouri.edu> <20120804165555.X1231@besplex.bde.org> <501D51D7.1020101@missouri.edu> <20120805030609.R3101@besplex.bde.org> <501D9C36.2040207@missouri.edu> <20120805175106.X3574@besplex.bde.org> <501EC015.3000808@missouri.edu> <20120805191954.GA50379@troutmask.apl.washington.edu> <20120807205725.GA10572@server.rulingia.com> <20120809025220.N4114@besplex.bde.org> <5027F07E.9060409@missouri.edu> <20120814003614.H3692@besplex.bde.org> <50295F5C.6010800@missouri.edu> <20120814072946.S5260@besplex.bde.org> <50297CA5.5010900@missouri.edu> <50297E43.7090309@missouri.edu> <20120814201105.T934@besplex.bde.org> <502A780B.2010106@missouri.edu> <20120815223631.N1751@besplex.bde.org> <502C0CF8.8040003@missouri.edu> <20120906221028.O1542@besplex.bde.org> <5048D00B.8010401@missouri.edu> <504D3CCD.2050006@missouri.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 09/09/2012 08:05 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > On 09/06/2012 11:32 AM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: > >> In the days or weeks to come, I might go over all these kinds of >> conditions over again. The paper by Hull et al, and the code used by >> boost, is written in such a way that the code for float is the same as >> the code for double. My code was designed just enough to work, whereas >> they put more thought into it. > > I am doing this right now. The code I currently have on the web page is > non-functional. 1. I think I have it fixed now. My code is much closer to the original intent of the algorithm used by Hull et al. In particular, the float version is just as easy as the double version. 2. The long and float version now are created from the double version by simple perl scripts (also put on my web page). 3. I used the "return (cpack(x+0.0L+(y+0), x+0.0L+(y+0)))" construction, but I still don't know why. I added a comment basically saying I did this because Bruce told me to. Stephen
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?504FF726.9060001>