This is the mail archive of the
libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the libstdc++ project.
Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))
Marcin Dalecki wrote:
There is no reason here and you presented no reasoning. But still there
is a
*convenient* extension of the definition domain for the power of
function for the
zero exponent.
The trouble is that there are *two* possible convenient extensions.
However, the one chosen by the C standard has indeed become pretty
prevalent (the Ada RM for instance specifies that 0**0 = 1 (applies
to complex case as well).
- 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))