[Bug c++/49813] [C++0x] sinh vs asinh vs constexpr

["rguenther at suse dot de" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813

--- Comment #12 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-07-22 11:20:52 UTC ---
On Fri, 22 Jul 2011, rguenther at suse dot de wrote:

> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
> 
> --- Comment #10 from rguenther at suse dot de <rguenther at suse dot de> 2011-07-22 11:17:38 UTC ---
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2011, paolo.carlini at oracle dot com wrote:
> 
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49813
> > 
> > --- Comment #9 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2011-07-22 11:09:55 UTC ---
> > Yes, Vincenzo, all the other C99-only functions should be audited. I suppose a
> > clean fix will automatically deal with all of them.
> 
> Looking at -original it seems that libstdc++ lacks C99 overloads for
> double - it has them for float and long double only.
> 
> Or that
> 
>   inline float
>   asinh(float __x)
>   { return __builtin_asinhf(__x); }
> 
>   inline long double
>   asinh(long double __x)
>   { return __builtin_asinhl(__x); }
> 
>   template<typename _Tp>
>     inline typename __gnu_cxx::__enable_if<__is_integer<_Tp>::__value,
>                                            double>::__type
>     asinh(_Tp __x)
>     { return __builtin_asinh(__x); }
> 
> isn't constexpr compatible.
> 
> Doesn't sound like a middle-end issue but either a library or frontend
> issue to me.
> 
> That said, it works fine if you give a asinh declaration in the
> testcase.

Btw, asinh is

  template<typename _Tp>
    inline typename __gnu_cxx::__promote<_Tp>::__type
    asinh(_Tp __x)
    {
      typedef typename __gnu_cxx::__promote<_Tp>::__type __type;
      return asinh(__type(__x));
    }

vs. sinh which is

  template<typename _Tp>
    inline typename __gnu_cxx::__enable_if<__is_integer<_Tp>::__value,
        double>::__type
    sinh(_Tp __x)
    { return __builtin_sinh(__x); }

note the lack of __gnu_cxx::__promote