This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
Robert Dewar wrote:
However, the one chosen by the C standard has indeed become pretty
prevalent (the Ada RM for instance specifies that 0**0 = 1 (applies
to complex case as well).
Interesting, thanks. The problem is, since the C standard is admittedly
rather vague in this area, some implementation of the C library simply
implement the basic formula (i.e., cexp(c*clog(z))) and don't deal *at all*
with special cases. This leads *naturally* to (nan, nan).
In other cases we are more "lucky", though
http://docs.hp.com/en/B2355-60103/cpow.3M.html
Paolo.
- References:
- __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))