From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11445 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2007 18:42:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 11388 invoked by uid 48); 8 Jul 2007 18:42:04 -0000 Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2007 18:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20070708184204.11387.qmail@sourceware.org> X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC References: Subject: [Bug c++/31780] [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with "complex type" conversion In-Reply-To: Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org From: "pcarlini at suse dot de" Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00951.txt.bz2 ------- Comment #12 from pcarlini at suse dot de 2007-07-08 18:42 ------- (In reply to comment #11) > I was confused by your crediting me with magic because it was Roger > Sayle who fixed the bug. Ah! Curious, he doesn't work on the C++ front-end very often... > So, libstdc++ is the rare case. Changing the library will give us very > natural semantics in the front end; we just declare GNU __complex__ to > be an arithmetic type, and everything else follows. Absent direction > from the ISO C++ committee regarding integration of C99 complex into > C++, that seems like the best we can do. What can I say... Gaby designed the complex class that way, those special constructors included. If we cannot avoid adding more constructors, so be it, but of course please make sure Gaby agrees. -- pcarlini at suse dot de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|WAITING |NEW Last reconfirmed|2007-07-07 19:26:39 |2007-07-08 18:42:04 date| | http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31780