tbaeder added a comment.
In D155572#4645997 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D155572#4645997>, @aaron.ballman
wrote:
> Hmmm, I think the answer is "no"... and "maybe." `_Complex` can only be
> followed by `float`, `double`, or `long double` specifically per the C
> standard. However, we also support `_Complex int` (and others) as an
> extension, which starts to make `_Complex` look more like `_Atomic` in that
> it augments an existing type, and so typedefs seem quite reasonable.
I know that much, I guess I was confused by the diagnostics:
../clang/test/AST/Interp/complex.cpp:121:18: warning: plain '_Complex'
requires a type specifier; assuming '_Complex double'
121 | using Gobble = _Complex Frobble;
| ^
| double
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D155572/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D155572
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
