Re^4: PDL 2.058 released

In fact, it's due to a new-ish change in GCC-land; on some versions, tgmath (type-generic maths) works fine for log10, but it seems they've changed that. Furthermore, clog10 (the complex version) is actually a GNU extension rather than part of C99, so I've adjusted ops.pd accordingly (and if there's no clog10 available, you can't do log10 on complex numbers, sorry - but it was ever thus).

I've just released PDL 2.060 which I believe fixes this, so please give it a try.

Comment on Re^4: PDL 2.058 released Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^5: PDL 2.058 released by syphilis (Archbishop) on Nov 09, 2021 at 02:50 UTC
2.060 tests fine - but I don't know precisely what it was that changed from the earlier versions of gcc/runtime in relation to log10 - nor whether it was a change for the best, or a bug. Do you have a simple C script that demonstrates this change ? Mingw's complex.h includes clog10() beginning with Strawberry's release of perl-5.30.0 (gcc-8.3.0, runtime 6.0), so it should be available to these Windows builds, and onwards. Cheers, Rob	[reply]
Re^6: PDL 2.058 released by etj (Priest) on Nov 11, 2021 at 17:45 UTC
Earlier GCC, this worked and produced the results you'd expect if (like previous me) you didn't properly understand the C99 tgmath, which then stopped working with more recent GCC: #include <tgmath.h> void main() { complex double z = 1.0; z = log10(z); printf("%f%+fi\n", creal(z), cimag(z)); } See https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/numeric/tgmath for more. Note log10 is in the "real-only" section; GCC incorporated it into their "real or imag" tgmath for a while incorporating their own clog10 extension, but then evidently changed their minds. The presence or absence of clog10 is not relevant to log10 working or not with tgmath.	[reply]
Re^7: PDL 2.058 released by syphilis (Archbishop) on Nov 11, 2021 at 21:35 UTC
Earlier GCC, this worked and produced the results you'd expect if (like previous me) you didn't properly understand the C99 tgmath, which then stopped working with more recent GCC: Thank you for elaborating. Cheers, Rob	[reply]