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: "pcarlini at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: 4 Apr 2005 23:37:25 -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 pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-04-04 23:37 -------
Hi. I suspect some of these issues are well known and general, not specific to
our implementation (e.g., the Std vs signed zeros, see N1612, available from:
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004/)
(p.s., FWIW, I *think* log(a1) is the same for imag(a1) == -0 vs +0)
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20758