[Bug treelang/55269] New: Rename tree_node complex field to avoid conflict with C99 complex type

[Bug treelang/55269] New: Rename tree_node complex field to avoid conflict with C99 complex type

[peter at colberg dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55269

             Bug #: 55269
           Summary: Rename tree_node complex field to avoid conflict with
                    C99 complex type
    Classification: Unclassified
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.7.2
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: minor
          Priority: P3
         Component: treelang
        AssignedTo: unassigned@gcc.gnu.org
        ReportedBy: peter@colberg.org


Dear GCC developers,

The identifier of the union field "tree_complex complex" of union tree_node in
tree.h potentially conflicts with the macro "#define complex _Complex" defined
in C99 <complex.h>.

I stumbled over this issue while writing a plugin for GCC using the foreign
function interface of LuaJIT. LuaJIT predefines C99 complex types, both
"_Complex" and "complex". Therefore LuaJIT rejects "tree_complex complex"
of tree_node as a declaration with an invalid declaration.

Could the tree_complex field be renamed, e.g., to "complex_cst"?

(The suggestion stems from the name of the macro COMPLEX_CST_CHECK.)

Regards,
Peter

[Bug treelang/55269] Rename tree_node complex field to avoid conflict with C99 complex type

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55269

--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski <pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-11 06:21:55 UTC ---
In 4.8, GCC is now written in C++ rather than C, so I don't think it matter
anymore as there is no macro define in C++ for complex.

[Bug treelang/55269] Rename tree_node complex field to avoid conflict with C99 complex type

[peter at colberg dot org]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55269

peter at colberg dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |INVALID

--- Comment #2 from peter at colberg dot org 2013-02-03 22:51:29 UTC ---
Closing this bug since it no longer applies to GCC ≥ 4.8.