From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20406 invoked by alias); 4 Apr 2005 23:37:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 20356 invoked by uid 48); 4 Apr 2005 23:37:25 -0000 Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 23:37:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20050404233725.20355.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pcarlini at suse dot de" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20050404213802.20758.kreckel@ginac.de> References: <20050404213802.20758.kreckel@ginac.de> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/20758] operator-(const T&, const complex&) vs operator-(const complex&, const complex&) X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00391.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pcarlini at suse dot de 2005-04-04 23:37 ------- Hi. I suspect some of these issues are well known and general, not specific to our implementation (e.g., the Std vs signed zeros, see N1612, available from: http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004/) (p.s., FWIW, I *think* log(a1) is the same for imag(a1) == -0 vs +0) -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20758