------- Comment #20 from gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu 2008-01-05 07:51 ------- Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with "complex type" conversion
"mark at codesourcery dot com" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: | ------- 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. That isn't a concern because I never published that constructor as a contract in the interface of std::complex<double>. -- Gaby -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31780