This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/20352] FAIL: 26_numerics/complex/pow.cc execution test
- From: "dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 8 Mar 2005 14:35:46 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/20352] FAIL: 26_numerics/complex/pow.cc execution test
- References: <20050306224922.20352.danglin@gcc.gnu.org>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-03-08 14:35 -------
Subject: Re: FAIL: 26_numerics/complex/pow.cc execution test
> Digging more (in C99 and Posix), it seems that pow(x,y) always behaves the same
> for x == +0 and x == -0: this would imply that probably it's safe to have in
> the generic code something like the attached (vs mainline, very same change
> also for 4.0 and 3.4). And should also improve the QoI of complex::pow(0, 0),
> aligning it to the real case, as per F.9.4.4
>
> Can you test it on the targets you have access to?
This fixes the fail on hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20. Also tested with no
regressions on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 (4.1.0), hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 (4.1.0)
and hppa-unknown-linux-gnu (4.0.0).
Dave
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20352