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: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at codesourcery dot com>
- Date: 20 May 2000 21:53:15 +0200
- Cc: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Organization: CodeSourcery, LLC
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10005201525360.5886-100000@gil-galad.mit.edu>
- Reply-To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
"Steven G. Johnson" <stevenj@gil-galad.mit.edu> writes:
| 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? Or is even
| the gcc version seriously buggy?
|
| The reason I ask is because I want to use complex types in a program, and
| I am wondering if they are in a usable state in gcc 2.95.2. At first
| glance, it seems that complex numbers basically work (trivial test
| programs work fine), but I am wondering what gotchas might be lurking.
There used to be addressing mode issue on 6biits machines. But recent
patches form from seem to fix the problem. You're welcome to test it
and feedback are appreciated.
-- Gaby
CodeSourcery, LLC http://www.codesourcery.com