This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

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

From: Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>
To: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
Cc: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org,libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2005 10:51:39 -0500
Subject: Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
References: <422C63ED.8020200@suse.de> <422C6C28.6070309@suse.de> <422C6FF8.6020102@adacore.com> <16940.30123.460980.69359@cuddles.cambridge.redhat.com> <422C7708.6020108@suse.de>

Paolo Carlini wrote:

Andrew Haley wrote:

F9.4.4 requires pow (x, 0) to return 1 for any x, even NaN.
Indeed. My point, basically, is that consistency appear to require the
very same behavior for *complex* zero^zero.


I am not sure, it looks like the standard is deliberately vague here,
and is not requiring this result.

Paolo.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Duncan Sands

References:
- __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Robert Dewar
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
  - From: Paolo Carlini

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]