This is the mail archive of the
gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
[Bug c++/70299] pow(long double, int) gives more imprecise result than pow(long double,long double) in c++03 mode
- From: "redi at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- To: gcc-bugs at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 20:52:11 +0000
- Subject: [Bug c++/70299] pow(long double, int) gives more imprecise result than pow(long double,long double) in c++03 mode
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-70299-4 at http dot gcc dot gnu dot org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70299
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Without libstdc++ dependencies:
inline long double pil(long double x, int n) { return __builtin_powil(x, n); }
inline long double pl(long double x, long double n) { return __builtin_powl(x,
n); }
int main()
{
__builtin_printf("pow(long double, int) : %.21Le\n", pil(10.L,-4823));
__builtin_printf("pow(long double, long double): %.21Le\n",
pl(10.L,-4823.L));
}