Re: C constant expressions proposals

[Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>]

"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm@polyomino.org.uk> writes:

[...]

| http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/#const
| 
| The models for C90 and C99 constant expressions remain unchanged.
| 
| Further comments on any aspects welcome.  Given the past heated debates on 
| the validity of gcc.c-torture/compile/20010327-1.c I'm a bit surprised at 
| the lack of any comments on its reinvalidation (or more generally on the 
| choice of extensions for GNU C; given past strongly stated opinions on 
| such extensions both to constant expressions and elsewhere I'd have 
| expected some people to object that there were too many useless extensions 
| included and others (or indeed the same people) that important extensions 
| used by real code were omitted).

I think the treatment of __complex__ is not right.  They are morally
arrays of two data.  I was expecting them to be treated as in the array
case, i.e. __real__ and __imag__ yield a constant expression when the
operand is a constant expression.

-- Gab