This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug libstdc++/20758] operator-(const T&, const complex<T>&) vs operator-(const complex<T>&, const complex<T>&)
- From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 4 Apr 2005 23:18:33 -0000
- Subject: [Bug libstdc++/20758] operator-(const T&, const complex<T>&) vs operator-(const complex<T>&, const complex<T>&)
- References: <20050404213802.20758.kreckel@ginac.de>
- Reply-to: gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org
------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-04-04 23:18 -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> Isn't the unary operator- a necessary ingredient for the bug because it
> silently changes the sign of zero?
I was just quoting what the standard says.
The exact quote is:
Returns complex<T>(lhs) -= rhs.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20758