[PATCH, C++] Fix PR63366: __complex not equivalent to __complex double in C++

[Nathan Sidwell]

On 10/29/14 02:47, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:

> It seems more sensible to keep it in this block as the existing
> defaulted_int block is for types for which it is not an error to omit the
> int type specifier.

It's not an error to omit it for complex - but of course means something 
different.  IMHO it would be confusing to set type to integer_type_node when 
that's definitely wrong.  But then setting 'defaulted_int'  when that's not the 
case is also confusing.

> ChangeLog unchanged. Ok for trunk?

Anyway, I have no further comments on this patch and defer to Jason.

nathan