Hi Paolo, 2012/9/19 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com>: > On 09/19/2012 01:24 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: >> >> On 09/19/2012 01:12 AM, Paolo Carlini wrote: >>> >>> Hi again, >>> >>> On 09/18/2012 08:33 PM, Paolo Carlini wrote: >>>> >>>> But I'm not surprised, frankly, I think the conflict is expected, *IF* >>>> (please check) TR1 says that those three overloads, for float, double an >>>> long double, must be declared in std::tr1 (likewise for all the other math >>>> functions) Now, given that our implementation has the C math.h injecting >>>> stuff in the global namespace - and that is legal - I would say that there >>>> is nothing to fix, maybe just a library testcase to tweak. As a matter of >>>> QoI the idea of having in tr1 using std::pow seems good, if this is what >>>> you >>>> are suggesting. >>> >>> I found the time to go (again, hopefully it's the last time ;) through >>> tr1/cmath, and now I understand why we have an issue with pow only, not with >>> the other functions. Ok. >>> >>> On the other hand - because of that comment which you mentioned earlier - >>> I don't think we can just have using std::pow in namespace std::tr1. I'm >>> coming to the conclusion that having instead an using ::pow, instead of the >>> open coded pow (double, double) could work. Did you try that together with >>> your front-end patch?
Yes, I tried that last evening (using ::pow), it passes regtest as usual -- probably by lack of testsuite coverage. And 'using std::pow' simply does not work. >> But I'm afraid this is still not completely correct, because if the user >> code has a using std::pow in the global namespace and then and include >> <tr1/cmath> the latter drags again in namespace std::tr1 the overloads pow >> (*, int) which we don't want there... grrrrr I'll add a testcase for this, if you agree. > You know what? All in all, I think we can go with your original idea of just > removing the overload for (double, double): what I didn't realize the first > time I saw the idea is that we have anyway the templatized pow which > forwards to std::pow. Thus, I suppose things should work pretty well. But > please add a big comment before the commented out overload. And let's see if > over the next months somebody complaints, otherwise, I think it will be > enough for TR1, at this point. > > Thanks for your patience!!! It seems reasonable, I'll update the patch soon with the comment that you suggest. Thank you for your immediate feedback ! -- Fabien
