This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))

From: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
To: Ronny Peine <RonnyPeine at gmx dot de>
Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 20:03:31 -0500
Subject: Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
References: <422C63ED.8020200@suse.de> <422C6C28.6070309@suse.de> <422C6FF8.6020102@adacore.com> <16940.30123.460980.69359@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <422C7708.6020108@suse.de> <422C788B.4010407@adacore.com> <1110211786.5910.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> <422CEC52.1040703@gmx.de> <422CF611.5030408@gmx.de> <c3e4bd4cdd8ee1c0ee5312eff11fa434@dalecki.de> <422CF898.4090500@gmx.de>

Ronny Peine wrote:

I don't think it's hidden. The former definiton is absolutely right.


Yes, but the argument by limits is specious, and indeed as already
shown in this thread, can lead to one of two answers. Just because
a function approaches the value X at point Y does not mean it has
the value X at point Y!

References:
- __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Duncan Sands
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Ronny Peine
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Ronny Peine
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Marcin Dalecki
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Ronny Peine

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]