Hi,
Daniel noticed that in <cmath> we have functions marked constexpr which
aren't really viable anyway due to the pointer parameter. Seems
basically harmless given our way to deal with these matters, but I agree
can be misleading. Tested x86_64-linux, committed.
Paolo.
///////////////////////
2011-11-14 Paolo Carlini <paolo.carl...@oracle.com>
* include/c_global/cmath (frexp, modf, remquo): Do not mark constexpr,
not viable anyway due to the pointer parameter.
Index: include/c_global/cmath
===================================================================
--- include/c_global/cmath (revision 181348)
+++ include/c_global/cmath (working copy)
@@ -318,11 +318,11 @@
using ::frexp;
#ifndef __CORRECT_ISO_CPP_MATH_H_PROTO1
- inline _GLIBCXX_CONSTEXPR float
+ inline float
frexp(float __x, int* __exp)
{ return __builtin_frexpf(__x, __exp); }
- inline _GLIBCXX_CONSTEXPR long double
+ inline long double
frexp(long double __x, int* __exp)
{ return __builtin_frexpl(__x, __exp); }
#endif
@@ -394,11 +394,11 @@
using ::modf;
#ifndef __CORRECT_ISO_CPP_MATH_H_PROTO1
- inline _GLIBCXX_CONSTEXPR float
+ inline float
modf(float __x, float* __iptr)
{ return __builtin_modff(__x, __iptr); }
- inline _GLIBCXX_CONSTEXPR long double
+ inline long double
modf(long double __x, long double* __iptr)
{ return __builtin_modfl(__x, __iptr); }
#endif
@@ -1578,16 +1578,16 @@
return remainder(__type(__x), __type(__y));
}
- constexpr float
+ inline float
remquo(float __x, float __y, int* __pquo)
{ return __builtin_remquof(__x, __y, __pquo); }
- constexpr long double
+ inline long double
remquo(long double __x, long double __y, int* __pquo)
{ return __builtin_remquol(__x, __y, __pquo); }
template<typename _Tp, typename _Up>
- constexpr typename __gnu_cxx::__promote_2<_Tp, _Up>::__type
+ inline typename __gnu_cxx::__promote_2<_Tp, _Up>::__type
remquo(_Tp __x, _Up __y, int* __pquo)
{
typedef typename __gnu_cxx::__promote_2<_Tp, _Up>::__type __type;
