This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Problems with PR 21210

Jason Merrill wrote:
On Sun, 29 May 2005 13:06:46 -0700, Mark Mitchell <> wrote:

So, we get an overload ambiguity; converting to double is no better
than converting to __complex__ double.

Sounds to me like the solution is to change that.  Make converting to
__complex T worse than converting to T, by a new rule in

I'm not very keen on that solution, in that it means adding complexity to an already complex taxonomy of conversions. But, it could certainly be done, and I can see an argument for saying that it's intuitively a simpler conversion. I could definitely go along.

(I'm surprised by Gaby's proposal in that I'm very surprised that the library people would consider silently changing the behavior of constructing a "std::complex<double>" from a "__complex__ double" to be anything other than the obvious copy. But, if the library people are happy, it's OK with me.)

My original suggestion to add constructors to std::complex requires no changes to the language and is backwards-compatible with ISO C++, as far as I can tell; what's wrong with that?

Mark Mitchell
CodeSourcery, LLC
(916) 791-8304

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]