This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c/37714] Sign of sin(-0.0) depends on optimization level
- From: "dickinsm at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 2 Oct 2008 14:34:26 -0000
- Subject: [Bug c/37714] Sign of sin(-0.0) depends on optimization level
- References: <bug-37714-16778@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Comment #2 from dickinsm at gmail dot com 2008-10-02 14:34 -------
Thanks for the response!
It does appear to be true that cexp doesn't follow
Annex G of C99, on OS X 10.5.5. I agree that this
is undesirable, but I can't see why it should
be considered a bug.
Annex G of C99 is merely informative, and as far
as I can tell __STDC_IEC_559_COMPLEX__ is not
defined on OS X 10.5.5.
In other words, it seems to me that there's no
basis for gcc's assumption that sin(-0.0) is
interchangeable with the imaginary part of
cexp(-0.0*I).
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37714