From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6492 invoked by alias); 27 Apr 2011 03:59:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 6479 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Apr 2011 03:59:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:58:48 +0000 From: "jason at gcc dot gnu.org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug libstdc++/48760] [4.6 / 4.7 Regression (?)] std::complex constructor buggy in the face of NaN's X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc X-Bugzilla-Component: libstdc++ X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: jason at gcc dot gnu.org X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.6.1 X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2011 03:59:00 -0000 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: 2011-04/txt/msg02707.txt.bz2 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48760 --- Comment #20 from Jason Merrill 2011-04-27 03:55:27 UTC --- (In reply to comment #19) > : data{ r, i } { } Yes. > In my opinion, at this point at least, it would be safer and simpler to > restrict the syntax to C++1x What is this C++1x you speak of? But yes, that makes sense. > Thus, any tip about the right bits of the C++ front-end to touch? I would start with the BRACE_ENCLOSED_INITIALIZER_P part of implicit_conversion. Jason