http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57974
--- Comment #11 from Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Paolo Carlini from comment #10) > Gaby, do you have an opinion on this? Irrespective of the long double issue, > do you want me to re-enable (contra LWG 844) the pow(const complex<>&, int) > overload in C++11 mode? If you think so, I can do it. I think pow(const complex<T>&,int) is lesser evil. So, yes, I will support re-enabling it. What would we run afoul, except the obvious standard letter? Would we be computing something wrong? -- Gaby
