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

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

Vincent Lefevre <vincent+gcc@vinc17.org> writes:

| 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...

You probably noticed that in the polynomial expansion, you are using
an integer power -- which everybody agrees on yield 1 at the limit.

I'm tlaking about 0^0, when you look at the limit of function x^y
-- which is closer to cpow() tgan powi().  Did you miss that?

-- Gaby