From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10345 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2011 21:11:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 10334 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Aug 2011 21:11:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-gx0-f175.google.com (HELO mail-gx0-f175.google.com) (209.85.161.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 21:11:14 +0000 Received: by gxk3 with SMTP id 3so2597662gxk.20 for ; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:11:14 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.118.27 with SMTP id q27mr246680ybc.181.1313788274183; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:11:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.151.12.8 with HTTP; Fri, 19 Aug 2011 14:11:14 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2011 22:54:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Add __builtin_complex to construct complex values (C1X CMPLX* macros) From: Gabriel Dos Reis To: "Joseph S. Myers" Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org X-SW-Source: 2011-08/txt/msg01624.txt.bz2 On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 10:55 AM, Joseph S. Myers wrote: > =A0Note that if you did > allow such initializers for C, it wouldn't provide *expressions* > usable in static initializers, since to make a braced initializer into > an expression you need a compound literal and compound literals can't > be used in static initializers.) Thanks for the rationale. I was puzzled until I read that bits. I would have thought that the natural thing to do was to fix C's compound literals so that they can be used in static initializers. Do you know why WG14 did not want to do that? -- Gaby