https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59087
--- Comment #17 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> --- Marc, I've just opened Bug 82417 as rejects-valid but I suppose it's really a dup of this one. (In reply to Marc Glisse from comment #13) > C++ code has 0 reason to include complex.h, only C code does, and thus it > makes sense if it contains what C says. We do #undef complex but only > because we are forced to do it. > > As for boost, reusing the name of a standard C macro is not the best idea > for interoperability. If you report it to them, I hope they would be fine > with replacing all 'I' with 'It'. But the following is valid C++11 code, and our "extension" of including C's <complex.h> means it doesn't compile: #include <complex.h> int I = 0; Yes, it's silly to do that in C++ and there's a workaround, but it's still a conformance bug. In strict -std=c++11 mode (rather than -std=gnu++11) this must compile.
