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: "pcarlini at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 7 Mar 2005 13:49:44 -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 pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-03-07 13:49 -------
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?
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20352