This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: How "broken" is C complex number support?
- To: stevenj at alum dot mit dot edu
- Subject: Re: How "broken" is C complex number support?
- From: "Martin v. Loewis" <martin at loewis dot home dot cs dot tu-berlin dot de>
- Date: Mon, 22 May 2000 11:01:37 +0200
- CC: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005201525360.5886-100000@gil-galad.mit.edu>
> According to http://gcc.gnu.org/c9xstatus.html, support for the C99
> complex type is currently "broken." What exactly does this mean? Is it
> just that complex numbers in gcc (a longstanding extension) have some
> minor technical incompatibilities with the C99 specification?
That is certainly the reason I called the feature buggy. AFAICT,
complex should be a keyword only if <complex.h> is included, and I
believe there are other things that are done incorrectly.
> Or is even the gcc version seriously buggy?
I believe that depends on the target. GCC may generate incorrect code
when passing complex numbers as function arguments.
Regards,
Martin