Hi,
as discussed once more in the audit trail of PR57974 and agreed with
Gaby I'm going to re-enable the overload. Tested x86_64-linux.
Thanks,
Paolo.
//////////////////////
2013-07-25 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com>
* include/std/complex (pow(const complex<>&, int)): Enable in
C++11 mode too.
* testsuite/26_numerics/complex/dr844.cc: Adjust.
* doc/xml/manual/intro.xml: Update.
Index: doc/xml/manual/intro.xml
===================================================================
--- doc/xml/manual/intro.xml (revision 201244)
+++ doc/xml/manual/intro.xml (working copy)
@@ -791,12 +791,6 @@
<listitem><para>Add the overload.
</para></listitem></varlistentry>
- <varlistentry><term><link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";
xlink:href="../ext/lwg-defects.html#844">844</link>:
- <emphasis>complex pow return type is ambiguous</emphasis>
- </term>
- <listitem><para>In C++11 mode, remove the pow(complex<T>, int)
signature.
- </para></listitem></varlistentry>
-
<varlistentry><term><link xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink";
xlink:href="../ext/lwg-defects.html#853">853</link>:
<emphasis>to_string needs updating with zero and one</emphasis>
</term>
Index: include/std/complex
===================================================================
--- include/std/complex (revision 201244)
+++ include/std/complex (working copy)
@@ -88,11 +88,8 @@
template<typename _Tp> complex<_Tp> log(const complex<_Tp>&);
/// Return complex base 10 logarithm of @a z.
template<typename _Tp> complex<_Tp> log10(const complex<_Tp>&);
-#if __cplusplus < 201103L
- // DR 844.
/// Return @a x to the @a y'th power.
template<typename _Tp> complex<_Tp> pow(const complex<_Tp>&, int);
-#endif
/// Return @a x to the @a y'th power.
template<typename _Tp> complex<_Tp> pow(const complex<_Tp>&, const _Tp&);
/// Return @a x to the @a y'th power.
@@ -955,7 +952,6 @@
// 26.2.8/9 pow(__x, __y): Returns the complex power base of __x
// raised to the __y-th power. The branch
// cut is on the negative axis.
-#if __cplusplus < 201103L
template<typename _Tp>
complex<_Tp>
__complex_pow_unsigned(complex<_Tp> __x, unsigned __n)
@@ -972,8 +968,12 @@
return __y;
}
- // _GLIBCXX_RESOLVE_LIB_DEFECTS
+ // In C++11 mode we used to implement the resolution of
// DR 844. complex pow return type is ambiguous.
+ // thus the following overload was disabled in that mode. However, doing
+ // that causes all sorts of issues, see, for example:
+ // http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-01/msg00058.html
+ // and also PR57974.
template<typename _Tp>
inline complex<_Tp>
pow(const complex<_Tp>& __z, int __n)
@@ -982,7 +982,6 @@
? complex<_Tp>(1) / std::__complex_pow_unsigned(__z, -(unsigned)__n)
: std::__complex_pow_unsigned(__z, __n);
}
-#endif
template<typename _Tp>
complex<_Tp>
Index: testsuite/26_numerics/complex/dr844.cc
===================================================================
--- testsuite/26_numerics/complex/dr844.cc (revision 201244)
+++ testsuite/26_numerics/complex/dr844.cc (working copy)
@@ -22,7 +22,11 @@
#include <testsuite_hooks.h>
#include <testsuite_tr1.h>
+// In C++11 mode we used to implement the resolution of
// DR 844. complex pow return type is ambiguous.
+// However, doing that causes all sorts of issues, see, for example:
+// http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/libstdc++/2013-01/msg00058.html
+// and also PR57974.
void test01()
{
bool test __attribute__((unused)) = true;
@@ -37,9 +41,7 @@
const double d1 = 1.0;
const long double ld1 = 1.0l;
- check_ret_type<cmplx_d_type>(std::pow(cmplx_f_type(f1, f1), i1));
- VERIFY( std::pow(cmplx_f_type(f1, f1), i1)
- == std::pow(cmplx_d_type(f1, f1), double(i1)) );
+ check_ret_type<cmplx_f_type>(std::pow(cmplx_f_type(f1, f1), i1));
check_ret_type<cmplx_d_type>(std::pow(cmplx_d_type(d1, d1), i1));
check_ret_type<cmplx_ld_type>(std::pow(cmplx_ld_type(ld1, ld1), i1));
}
