1 files changed, 97 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/source/luametatex/source/libraries/libcerf/defs.h b/source/luametatex/source/libraries/libcerf/defs.h
new file mode 100644
index 000000000..8bc6e3af6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/source/luametatex/source/libraries/libcerf/defs.h
@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+/* Library libcerf:
+ *   compute complex error functions,
+ *   along with Dawson, Faddeeva and Voigt functions
+ *
+ * File defs.h:
+ *   Language-dependent includes.
+ *
+ * Copyright:
+ *   (C) 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
+ *   (C) 2013 Forschungszentrum Jülich GmbH
+ *
+ * Licence:
+ *   MIT Licence.
+ *   See ../COPYING
+ *
+ * Authors:
+ *   Steven G. Johnson, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2012, core author
+ *   Joachim Wuttke, Forschungszentrum Jülich, 2013, package maintainer
+ *
+ * Website:
+ *   http://apps.jcns.fz-juelich.de/libcerf
+ */
+
+/*
+
+    This file is patched by Mojca Miklavec and Hans Hagen for usage in LuaMetaTeX where we use
+    only C and also want to compile with the Microsoft compiler. So, when updating this library
+    one has to check for changes. Not that we expect many as this is a rather stable library.
+
+    In the other files there are a few macros used that deal with the multiplication and addition
+    of complex and real nmbers. Of course the original code is kept as-is.
+
+*/
+
+# ifndef __CERF_C_H
+#   define __CERF_C_H
+
+# define _GNU_SOURCE // enable GNU libc NAN extension if possible
+
+/*
+    Constructing complex numbers like 0+i*NaN is problematic in C99
+    without the C11 CMPLX macro, because 0.+I*NAN may give NaN+i*NAN if
+    I is a complex (rather than imaginary) constant.  For some reason,
+    however, it works fine in (pre-4.7) gcc if I define Inf and NaN as
+    1/0 and 0/0 (and only if I compile with optimization -O1 or more),
+    but not if I use the INFINITY or NAN macros.
+*/
+
+/*
+    __builtin_complex was introduced in gcc 4.7, but the C11 CMPLX
+    macro may not be defined unless we are using a recent (2012) version
+    of glibc and compile with -std=c11... note that icc lies about being
+    gcc and probably doesn't have this builtin(?), so exclude icc
+    explicitly.
+*/
+
+# if (_MSC_VER)
+    # define C(a,b) _Cbuild((double)(a), (double)(b))
+    # define Inf    INFINITY
+    # define NaN    NAN
+# else
+    # define C(a,b) ((a) + I*(b))
+    # define Inf    (1./0.)
+    # define NaN    (0./0.)
+# endif
+
+# include <complex.h>
+
+# if (_MSC_VER)
+
+    # define _cerf_cmplx _Dcomplex
+
+    static _Dcomplex complex_neg   (_Dcomplex x)              { return _Cmulcr(x, -1.0); }
+    static _Dcomplex complex_add_cc(_Dcomplex x, _Dcomplex y) { return _Cbuild(creal(x) + creal(y), cimag(x) + cimag(y)); }
+    static _Dcomplex complex_add_rc(double    x, _Dcomplex y) { return _Cbuild(x + creal(y), x + cimag(y)); }
+    static _Dcomplex complex_sub_cc(_Dcomplex x, _Dcomplex y) { return _Cbuild(creal(x) - creal(y), cimag(x) - cimag(y)); }
+    static _Dcomplex complex_sub_rc(double    x, _Dcomplex y) { return _Cbuild(x - creal(y), x - cimag(y)); }
+    static _Dcomplex complex_mul_cc(_Dcomplex x, _Dcomplex y) { return _Cmulcc((y), (x)); }
+    static _Dcomplex complex_mul_rc(double    x, _Dcomplex y) { return _Cmulcr((y), (x)); }
+    static _Dcomplex complex_mul_cr(_Dcomplex x, double    y) { return _Cmulcr((x), (y)); }
+
+# else
+
+    typedef double _Complex _cerf_cmplx;
+
+    # define complex_neg(x)       (-x)
+    # define complex_add_cc(x,y)  (x+y)
+    # define complex_add_rc(x,y)  (x+y)
+    # define complex_sub_cc(x,y)  (x-y)
+    # define complex_sub_rc(x,y)  (x-y)
+    # define complex_mul_cc(x,y)  (x*y)
+    # define complex_mul_rc(x,y)  (x*y)
+    # define complex_mul_cr(x,y)  (x*y)
+
+# endif
+
+# endif