11706 vs ([lno] Canonical iv creation)

[Paolo Carlini]

Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:

>| And, probably (as Gaby pointed out in the audit trail), in std_cmath.h
>| we shouldn't have "using ::pow" for double arguments but instead:
>| 
>|   inline double
>|   pow(double __x, double __y)
>|   { return __builtin_pow(__x, __y); }
>
>Yes.  However, there is a subtle issue here.  Contrary to C, C++
>overloads pow() for (double, int).  So, while in C pow(3.14, 4) would
>call pow(double, double), in C++ it would call pow(double, int).
>I'm under the impression that Richard seems to overlook that point.
>
>A way to refine this is to use class template specilizations to
>dispatch to appropriate built-ins.  Despite Richard G. shouting, I
>don't want to see ::pow() in std_cmath.h.
>  
>
Excellent Gaby! Thanks for your puntualization about the "special" C++
overaload for (double, int), I had *completely* overlooked it.

So, let's start with the basic clean-up (patch in testing), then let's 
try to
figure out together the template specialization you are mentioning above.

Paolo.