Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | On 2005-03-10 15:54:03 +0100, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote: | > The C standard is not the holy bible and certainly does not define | > everything. We're talking about compiler construction, here. | | This isn't just compiler construction. __builtin_cpow is equivalent | to the C99 cpow (as said in gcc/doc/extend.texi), and the end-user | is concerned by the C99 cpow. | | > | I disagree. One can mathematically define 0^0 as 1. One often does | > | this. | > | > what you do is to set a local convention regardless of all | > mathematical absurdities you run into. That is very different from | > having 0^0 mathematically defined. I would have expected that the math | > courses you took at ENS Lyon mentioned that. | | This is not a local convention. You probably have never seen a | polynomial expression written like this: P(x) = \sum a_i x^i...
You probably noticed that in the polynomial expansion, you are using an integer power -- which everybody agrees on yield 1 at the limit. I'm tlaking about 0^0, when you look at the limit of function x^y -- which is closer to cpow() tgan powi(). Did you miss that? -- Gaby
