Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #158648

Re: CMPLX vs a+bi values

Show all headers | View raw

beej@beej.us (Beej) writes:

> Time for another esoteric question!
>
> ----------
>
> #include <complex.h>
>
> double complex a = CMPLX(1, 2);
> double complex b = 1 + 2*I;
>
> ----------
>
> They compare equal, of course.  [..discussion of possible
> differences..]

Normally I would prefer to avoid either form.  If what you care
about is complex values in ordinary code (ie, in statements or
initializers for non-static locals), you can use something
like this:

    typedef double _Complex                 Z;

    typedef union { double xy[2]; Z z; }    Union_xy_Z;

    #define COMPLEX(x,y)  (   (Union_xy_Z){ .xy[0]=(x), .xy[1]=(y) }.z   )

    Z
    minus_one_example_a(){
        Z i = COMPLEX( 0, 1 );
        return  i*i;
    }

This COMPLEX macro does not need any header, and works in both
C99 and C11 (provided of course _Complex is supported).  It does
have a drawback, in that it cannot be used in initializers at the
top level (what the C standard calls "external definitions").
However, we can define a macro that gives a value of a pointer to
a complex:

    #define A_COMPLEX(x,y)  (   (Z*)  &COMPLEX( x, y )   )

    static const Z *const pI = A_COMPLEX( 0, 1 );

    Z
    minus_one_example_b(){
        return  *pI * *pI;
    }

Note that the variable 'pI' need not be declared 'const' (for
either or both of the two 'const' modifiers in the declaration).

The A_COMPLEX macro works for external definitions, but because
of how compound literals are defined A_COMPLEX does not work for
'static' declarations inside a function.  So if we really need a
function-local static, an explicit intermediate object can be
used to do that:

    Z
    minus_one_example_c(){
     static Union_xy_Z xy_I = {{ 0, 1 }};
        Z *const pI = & xy_I.z;
        return  *pI * *pI;
    }

The expression '*pI' can be used to update as well as read the
function-local static object xy_I.z.

All the above is required by the C standard to work in C.
Furthermore, because the two components of a complex are stored
directly, rather than being combined using multiplication or
addition, losing the sign of a (floating) negative zero shouldn't
ever happen.

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

CMPLX vs a+bi values beej@beej.us (Beej) - 2021-01-16 06:27 +0000
  Re: CMPLX vs a+bi values James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-16 11:18 -0500
    Re: CMPLX vs a+bi values "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 13:52 -0800
      Re: CMPLX vs a+bi values "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 14:01 -0800
  Re: CMPLX vs a+bi values Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-20 07:20 -0800
    Re: CMPLX vs a+bi values beej@beej.us (Beej) - 2021-01-26 02:13 +0000
      Re: CMPLX vs a+bi values Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-27 06:19 -0800
  Re: CMPLX vs a+bi values "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 13:39 -0800
    Re: CMPLX vs a+bi values "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 13:40 -0800
    Re: CMPLX vs a+bi values James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-20 17:40 -0500
      Re: CMPLX vs a+bi values "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 14:57 -0800
        Re: CMPLX vs a+bi values James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-01-20 19:21 -0500
          Re: CMPLX vs a+bi values "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 19:44 -0800
  Re: CMPLX vs a+bi values Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-01-27 07:30 -0800

csiph-web