This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Problems with PR 21210
- From: "Nathan (Jasper) Myers" <ncm at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Mark Mitchell <mark at codesourcery dot com>
- Cc: Benjamin Kosnik <bkoz at redhat dot com>, gdr at integrable-solutions dot net,jason at redhat dot com, libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org, gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org,nathan at codesourcery dot com
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 22:38:43 -0400
- Subject: Re: Problems with PR 21210
- References: <200505292006.j4TK6ktK008048@sethra.codesourcery.com> <email@example.com> <429B9AAF.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <429BBDDE.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <429CE32D.firstname.lastname@example.org>
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 03:20:29PM -0700, Mark Mitchell wrote:
> I'm not sure what other areas of concern arise, with respect to this PR,
> which is just about the core language.
> There are indeed other questions, though, like:
> 1. Overload resolution
> void f(std::complex<double>);
> void f(__complex__ double);
> 2. Should we have overloads of "sin" (and so forth) for "__complex__"
The Intent of the Committee was that compilers would open-code complex
and val_array objects if there was anything to be gained by it.
That is, std::complex<> and __complex__ ought to one and the same
type. I hope the C committee has not given them such different
semantics that it's impossible.