11706 vs ([lno] Canonical iv creation)

[Paolo Carlini]

Paolo Carlini wrote:

> Why not removing it, the version taking integer arguments (and 
> __pow_helper), and adding the above instead?

... well, however there is libstdc++/3181, and we don't want to regress 
on that, therefore, probably, we must keep 'pow(double __x, int __i)' 
and so on, but I don't see what's wrong with using __builtin_pow in the 
implementation!

Notice that the very same thing (integer overload using __builtin_* in 
the implementation) is /already/ happening for sin, cos, tan, and so on!!!!

Paolo.