------- Comment #2 from dickinsm at gmail dot com 2008-10-02 14:34 ------- Thanks for the response!
It does appear to be true that cexp doesn't follow Annex G of C99, on OS X 10.5.5. I agree that this is undesirable, but I can't see why it should be considered a bug. Annex G of C99 is merely informative, and as far as I can tell __STDC_IEC_559_COMPLEX__ is not defined on OS X 10.5.5. In other words, it seems to me that there's no basis for gcc's assumption that sin(-0.0) is interchangeable with the imaginary part of cexp(-0.0*I). -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37714
