Thanks! All those references are interesting (and depressing).
I think there might be a typo in the patch you sent: _MSC_V
for _MSC_VER? Here's my current guess (with 2 clang++ cases so
I can switch back and forth more easily):
#if __TINYC__ || _MSC_VER || (__clang__ && __cplusplus)
/* _MSC_VER (and clang++??) should also set HAVE_COMPLEX_NUMBERS to 0
*/
typedef double s7_complex;
#else
#if __cplusplus /* only __GNUC__ */
#include <complex>
#ifdef __GNUC__
typedef std::complex<s7_double> s7_complex;
#else
using s7_complex = std::complex<double>;
/* sort of works in clang++ but there are many more problems */
#endif
#else
#include <complex.h>
typedef double complex s7_complex;
#endif
#endif
_______________________________________________
Cmdist mailing list
Cmdist@ccrma.stanford.edu
https://cm-mail.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/cmdist
