From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7151 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2008 19:19:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 7142 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Apr 2008 19:19:22 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mailwasher.lanl.gov (HELO mailwasher.lanl.gov) (204.121.3.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:18:51 +0000 Received: from mailwasher.lanl.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailwasher.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DAC5410AF for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:18:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from mailwasher.lanl.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailwasher.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 389DA5410CD for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:18:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from mailrelay3.lanl.gov (mailrelay3.lanl.gov [128.165.4.104]) by mailwasher.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 371385410AF for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:18:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay3.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3493EDF0D2C for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:18:50 -0600 (MDT) X-CTN-5-Virus-Scanner: amavisd-new at mailrelay3.lanl.gov Received: from mailrelay3.lanl.gov (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mailrelay3.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 20B03DF0D40 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:18:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from alvie-mail.lanl.gov (alvie-mail.lanl.gov [128.165.4.110]) by mailrelay3.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F75CDF0D3F for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:18:50 -0600 (MDT) Received: from [128.165.59.157] (manticore.lanl.gov [128.165.59.157]) by alvie-mail.lanl.gov (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFA581FC042 for ; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:18:43 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Re: [Help-gsl] GSL and C99 standard From: Gerard Jungman To: gsl-discuss@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <87wsn5irwq.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk> References: <87wsn5irwq.wl%bjg@network-theory.co.uk> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:19:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1207855079.6909.74.camel@manticore.lanl.gov> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.3 (2.8.3-2.fc6) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-CTN-5-MailScanner-Information: Please see http://network.lanl.gov/email/virus-scan.php X-CTN-5-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-CTN-5-MailScanner-From: jungman@lanl.gov Mailing-List: contact gsl-discuss-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gsl-discuss-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-q2/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 The other problem with C99 complex types is that they introduce yet another possibility for variation in binary layout, alignment, etc. The three "complex" types that need to play together are Fortran COMPLEX, C++ std::complex, and now C99 complex. And there are (as of yet, AFAIK) no compatibility guarantees for these on any platform, even though they should probably work "most of the time". It's really a stupid situation. At the very least, the C++ and C99 committees should decide on something. But they probably never will. -- Gerard Jungman On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 17:41 +0100, Brian Gough wrote: > At Thu, 10 Apr 2008 00:47:06 +0800, > Hongzheng Wang wrote: > > Although C99 standard has not been fully implemented in GCC, several > > new key features, e.g. complex type support, are indeed useful to > > numerical computations. So, I wonder if there is any plan for the > > development of GSL to embrass C99 standard and adopt these useful > > offers. > > Do complex types acually work now? I haven't checked for a while but > according to http://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-4.3/c99status.html they weren't > completed. > > I would like to keep C89 compatibility, which limits the extent to > which any new features can be used.