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

[Andrew Haley]

Robert Dewar writes:
 > Paolo Carlini wrote:
 > 
 > > Actually, sorry, __builtin_cpow returns (nan, nan) (got
 > > sidetracked by a strange issue I'm seeing in the C++ library),
 > > even "worse", so to speak...
 > 
 > Well it certainly seems the right result in this case to me. Does
 > the standard really require the wrong result here?

F9.4.4 requires pow (x, 0) to return 1 for any x, even NaN.

The controversy about what 0^0 really should be is very old, and
apparently was the subject of a long flame war in the Nineteenth
century...

Andrew.