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

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Vincent Lefevre <vincent+gcc@vinc17.org> writes:

| On 2005-03-10 01:01:18 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
| > No.  I mean when I call powi() either through built-ins or appropriate
| > overload (several programming languages do so), I expect sane semantics.
| 
| What is powi()? I couldn't find it in the C standard. It isn't
| in the Linux man pages either.

The C standard is not the holy bible and certainly does not define
everything.  We're talking about compiler construction, here.   If
you're seriously interested in mucking with GCC details, you should
read its documentation in $GCC/gcc/doc/*.texi

| > The asseryion that 0^0 is mathematically undefined is not a bogus
| > reason. It is a fact.
| 
| I disagree. One can mathematically define 0^0 as 1. One often does
| this.

what you do is to set a local convention regardless of all
mathematical absurdities you run into.  That is very different from
having 0^0 mathematically defined.  I would have expected that the math
courses you took at ENS Lyon mentioned that.

-- Gaby