------- Comment #23 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2008-01-06 15:28 -------
Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with
"complex type" conversion
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types
| for ?: with "complex type" conversion
|
| gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote:
|
| > | > 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.
| >
| > That isn't a concern because I never published that constructor as a
| > contract in the interface of std::complex<double>.
|
| I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's a public constructor;
I mean that it is not a standard constructor, and it is not a
constructor I documented as a GNU extension. The fact that it is a
public constructor is not, by itself, a documentation that it is a
standard constructor or a constructor that users should use.
-- Gaby
--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31780
