Re: __builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))

[Vincent Lefevre <vincent+gcc at vinc17 dot org>]

On 2005-03-10 15:54:03 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> The C standard is not the holy bible and certainly does not define
> everything.  We're talking about compiler construction, here.

This isn't just compiler construction. __builtin_cpow is equivalent
to the C99 cpow (as said in gcc/doc/extend.texi), and the end-user
is concerned by the C99 cpow.

> | I disagree. One can mathematically define 0^0 as 1. One often does
> | this.
> 
> what you do is to set a local convention regardless of all
> mathematical absurdities you run into.  That is very different from
> having 0^0 mathematically defined.  I would have expected that the math
> courses you took at ENS Lyon mentioned that.

This is not a local convention. You probably have never seen a
polynomial expression written like this: P(x) = \sum a_i x^i...

-- 
Vincent Lefèvre <vincent@vinc17.org> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.org/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.org/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / SPACES project at LORIA