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 Tue, 8 Mar 2005 03:24:35 +0100, Marcin Dalecki <martin@dalecki.de> wrote:
>
> 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.
I guess just because someone wrote _the_ standard programs for testing
the quality of floating point support in C and Fortran, and has got a
ACM Turing Award for:
"For his fundamental contributions to numerical analysis. One of the
foremost experts on floating-point computations. Kahan has dedicated
himself to 'making the world safe for numerical computations.'"
doesn't mean you should actually pay attention to anything they have
to say on the subject.
- 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))