From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10727 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2008 16:03:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 10374 invoked by uid 48); 29 Aug 2008 16:01:46 -0000 Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2008 16:03:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20080829160146.10373.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/37276] Trouble with some (C99?) math builtins and namespace std In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2008-08/txt/msg02366.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #7 from paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com 2008-08-29 16:01 ------- The strict c++98 standard, without GNU extensions, doesn't know anything about atanh - there isn't a single mention in the entire Standard - therefore I don't see why any difference is wanted. Even less I see why we want Seg-faults at run-time. Even less, why we want that in the C++0x era, when C99 math facilities are on a par with C89 ones. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37276