------- Comment #18 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2007-12-26 21:19 -------
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types
for ?: with "complex type" conversion
gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org wrote:
> I'm very nervous about adding more constructors.
> I'd rather distinguish the constructor taking __complex__ by adding
> a dummy parameter:
>
> enum _DummyArg { };
> complex(__complex__ double __z, _DummyArg);
That will, however, break backwards compatibility for user programs (if
any) relying on the constructor.
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31780
