------- Additional Comments From dave at hiauly1 dot hia dot nrc dot ca 2005-03-08 14:35 ------- Subject: Re: FAIL: 26_numerics/complex/pow.cc execution test
> Digging more (in C99 and Posix), it seems that pow(x,y) always behaves the > same > for x == +0 and x == -0: this would imply that probably it's safe to have in > the generic code something like the attached (vs mainline, very same change > also for 4.0 and 3.4). And should also improve the QoI of complex::pow(0, 0), > aligning it to the real case, as per F.9.4.4 > > Can you test it on the targets you have access to? This fixes the fail on hppa1.1-hp-hpux10.20. Also tested with no regressions on hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 (4.1.0), hppa64-hp-hpux11.11 (4.1.0) and hppa-unknown-linux-gnu (4.0.0). Dave -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20352
