This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
On 2005-03-08, at 02:55, Ronny Peine wrote:
Maybe i found something:
http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~wkahan/ieee754status/ieee754.ps
page 9 says:
Lot's of opinions few hard arguments... I see there.
I wouldn't consider the above mentioned paper authoritative in any way.
- 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))
- 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))