* [Bug libstdc++/107538] std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
2022-11-05 21:37 [Bug libstdc++/107538] New: std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-05 21:37 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-05 21:45 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-05 21:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107538
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Taken from https://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?55547#comment0 but I don't think
anybody ever reported it here.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107538] std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
2022-11-05 21:37 [Bug libstdc++/107538] New: std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-05 21:37 ` [Bug libstdc++/107538] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-05 21:45 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-09 4:38 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-05 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107538
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |gdr at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Our use of polar seems to have been introduced specifically to deal with a
different edge case, see r0-50043-g1db0418ae570ef for PR libstdc++/10689.
When https://wg21.link/lwg2459 added the non-negative precondition to polar
that introduced this problem for pow.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107538] std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
2022-11-05 21:37 [Bug libstdc++/107538] New: std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-05 21:37 ` [Bug libstdc++/107538] " redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-05 21:45 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-09 4:38 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-09 13:29 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-09 4:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107538
Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ever confirmed|0 |1
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Target Milestone|--- |13.0
Last reconfirmed| |2022-11-09
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107538] std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
2022-11-05 21:37 [Bug libstdc++/107538] New: std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-09 4:38 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-11-09 13:29 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-04-26 6:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: redi at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-11-09 13:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107538
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #0)
> #define _GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
> #include <complex>
> #include <limits>
>
> int main()
> {
> double nan = std::numeric_limits<double>::quiet_NaN();
> std::pow(10, std::complex<double>(nan, 1));
Actually maybe the assertion is OK. This violates [complex.numbers] p3:
"If the result of a function is not mathematically defined or not in the range
of representable values for its type, the behavior is undefined."
10^(nan + 1i) is not mathematically defined, an assertion seems OK.
If we want to prevent the assertion here we could do:
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/complex
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/complex
@@ -699,12 +699,19 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
&& !_GLIBCXX_FAST_MATH>::_S_do_it(__z);
}
+ template<typename _Tp>
+ inline complex<_Tp>
+ __polar(const _Tp& __rho, const _Tp& __theta)
+ { return complex<_Tp>(__rho * cos(__theta), __rho * sin(__theta)); }
+
template<typename _Tp>
inline complex<_Tp>
polar(const _Tp& __rho, const _Tp& __theta)
{
+ // _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS
+ // 2459. std::polar should require a non-negative rho
__glibcxx_assert( __rho >= 0 );
- return complex<_Tp>(__rho * cos(__theta), __rho * sin(__theta));
+ return std::__polar<_Tp>(__rho, __theta);
}
template<typename _Tp>
@@ -778,7 +785,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
template<typename _Tp>
inline complex<_Tp>
__complex_exp(const complex<_Tp>& __z)
- { return std::polar<_Tp>(exp(__z.real()), __z.imag()); }
+ { return std::__polar<_Tp>(exp(__z.real()), __z.imag()); }
#if _GLIBCXX_USE_C99_COMPLEX
inline __complex__ float
@@ -1038,7 +1045,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
return pow(__x.real(), __y);
complex<_Tp> __t = std::log(__x);
- return std::polar<_Tp>(exp(__y * __t.real()), __y * __t.imag());
+ return std::__polar<_Tp>(exp(__y * __t.real()), __y * __t.imag());
}
template<typename _Tp>
@@ -1075,8 +1082,8 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
inline complex<_Tp>
pow(const _Tp& __x, const complex<_Tp>& __y)
{
- return __x > _Tp() ? std::polar<_Tp>(pow(__x, __y.real()),
- __y.imag() * log(__x))
+ return __x > _Tp() ? std::__polar<_Tp>(pow(__x, __y.real()),
+ __y.imag() * log(__x))
: std::pow(complex<_Tp>(__x), __y);
}
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107538] std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
2022-11-05 21:37 [Bug libstdc++/107538] New: std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2022-11-09 13:29 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-04-26 6:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-07-27 9:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-04-26 6:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107538
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|13.0 |13.2
--- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 13.1 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 13.2.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107538] std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
2022-11-05 21:37 [Bug libstdc++/107538] New: std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2023-04-26 6:56 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-07-27 9:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2024-02-13 4:11 ` orion at nwra dot com
2024-05-21 9:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-07-27 9:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107538
Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|13.2 |13.3
--- Comment #5 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 13.2 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 13.3.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107538] std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
2022-11-05 21:37 [Bug libstdc++/107538] New: std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2023-07-27 9:24 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2024-02-13 4:11 ` orion at nwra dot com
2024-05-21 9:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: orion at nwra dot com @ 2024-02-13 4:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107538
--- Comment #6 from Orion Poplawski <orion at nwra dot com> ---
Any progress on determining whether or not this is a valid assertion?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [Bug libstdc++/107538] std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS
2022-11-05 21:37 [Bug libstdc++/107538] New: std::pow(10, std::complex(NaN, 1)) aborts with -D_GLIBCXX_ASSERTIONS redi at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2024-02-13 4:11 ` orion at nwra dot com
@ 2024-05-21 9:12 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
7 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2024-05-21 9:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107538
Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Target Milestone|13.3 |13.4
--- Comment #7 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
GCC 13.3 is being released, retargeting bugs to GCC 13.4.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread