Hello,
It seems that the implementation of DR 387 in trunk's is incomplete:
both versions of operator+,-(const _Tp&) still assume real() is an lvalue (see
below). These are the only offenders , AFAICS.
Is somebody on this, or should I file a PR?
Regards, Jan.
The program:
#in
mode.
If not, how can I explicitly disable support for variadic templates? (The
present behaviour frustrates some of our local autoconf tests.)
Should I file a bug report?
Regards, Jan van Dijk.
ine 17) that is fine (?).
Thank you for considering this issue.
With kind regards,
Jan van Dijk.
Index: pt.c
===
--- pt.c(revision 127686)
+++ pt.c(working copy)
@@ -5034,7 +5034,7 @@
else if (arg_idx < narg
Good morning,
The following trivial patch fixes an apparent typo in configure.ac in the gcc/
subdirectory. This is HEAD, I did not check if this is needed on any of the
branches as well.
Regards, Jan van Dijk
2006-11-06 Jan van Dijk <[EMAIL PROTEC
On Monday 02 October 2006 20:53, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
[...]
>
> | the result of the "same" multiplication considered as complex *
> | complex (vs complex * real) has a different sign for the zero
> | imaginary component.
>
> Thanks for the example. I'm not sure this was anticipated by the C++
>
On Tuesday 03 October 2006 11:08, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2006, Jan van Dijk wrote:
> > More serious is the fact that the compiler translates 1*(Inf,Inf) into
> > (NaN,NaN). This is plain wrong, but, as Joseph mentioned, the solution
> > requires the impleme
On Monday 02 October 2006 19:39, Gabriel Dos Reis wrote:
> "Joseph S. Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> | On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Jan van Dijk wrote:
> | > On Monday 02 October 2006 12:57, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> | > > On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Jan van Dijk wro
On Monday 02 October 2006 12:57, Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2006, Jan van Dijk wrote:
> > * the C99 and C++ standards say *nothing* about the details of compex
> > multiplication
>
> The C99 standard says that real operands aren't converted to complex, bu
d for lack of an
authoritative statement about _what_ gcc is supposed to implement . Once a
choice has been made I, an otherwise happy user, know what to expect and may
be able to help solving this problem.
I hope to hear,
with kind regards,
Jan van Dijk.
--
If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants
