__builtin_cpow((0,0),(0,0))

Robert Dewar dewar@adacore.com
Mon Mar 7 15:51:00 GMT 2005


Paolo Carlini wrote:
> Andrew Haley wrote:
> 
>> F9.4.4 requires pow (x, 0) to return 1 for any x, even NaN.
>>  
>>
> Indeed. My point, basically, is that consistency appear to require the
> very same behavior for *complex* zero^zero.

I am not sure, it looks like the standard is deliberately vague here,
and is not requiring this result.
> 
> Paolo.




More information about the Gcc mailing list