https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64497
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64497
Sergey Zubkov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||cubbi at cubbi dot org
--- Comment #5 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64497
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Looking at the C standard, it seems that the result is implementation-defined
on underflow, and zero is a valid result. C++ doesn't change that.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64497
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Walter Mascarenhas from comment #2)
> What if there is a difference in the expected behavior
> for this function in C and C++11?
There isn't any difference, so it doesn't matter.
> Is it not
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64497
--- Comment #2 from Walter Mascarenhas ---
What if there is a difference in the expected behavior
for this function in C and C++11? Is it not up to g++
for implementing what is mandated in C++11? (This
is not a rhetorical question, I really do n
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64497
--- Comment #1 from Jonathan Wakely ---
GCC just calls the scalnlnl() function in libm, so it's not a GCC bug, and is
not specific to C++ either. I suggest you report it to your libc vendor.
Complete testcase in C:
#include
#include
#include
