This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Does "complex xxx" work?
Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com> writes:
| Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net> writes:
|
| > Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com> writes:
| >
| > | H. J. Lu wrote:
| > | > c_common_nodes_and_builtins calls
| > | >
| > | > (*lang_hooks.decls.pushdecl) (build_decl (TYPE_DECL,
| > | > get_identifier ("complex float"),
| > | > complex_float_type_node));
| > | [snip]
| > | >
| > | > What are they used for? I still can't use any of those in C++.
| > |
| > | C99 defines a new keyword, _Complex, for creating various complex
| > | number types; by including <complex.h>, a programmer can used the
| > | synonym "complex" for "_Complex".
| > |
| > | I've used these types in gcc-compiled C99 programs, so they must work.
| >
| > I believe the real question was: Why does GCC treat "complex" (not
| > _Complex) as keyword? Clearly that is a bug in GCC.
|
| It's a historical extension.
Note that it does not work in C++. Therefore it is pointless code to
run in C++. I'm not even sure it is used in that form in C.
At any rate it should be revomed, as the workaround is simple.
-- Gaby