cpow

Reply: Steve Kargl : "Re: cpow"
Go to: [ bottom of page ] [ top of archives ] [ this month ]

From: Paul Zimmermann <Paul.Zimmermann_at_inria.fr>
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2025 06:45:30 UTC

       Hi,

we noticed that in FreeBSD 14.3, cpow(x,y) for x = y = (+0,+0) yields (+0,+0),
whereas GNU MPC yields (1,+0), which matches the real case, where IEEE 754
requires x^+0 = 1 when x is not a signaling NaN.

Is there any reason for the choice (+0,+0)?

Paul