Barry Smith <[email protected]> writes: > I think you missed my point. The source code uses _Complex but the > configure test uses complex (nothing to do with complex.h).
It includes the C99 header <complex.h>, which the standard says contains #define complex _Complex and a few other things. > Shouldn’t the configure test use _Complex? It could, but the warning only comes up due to -std=c89 -pedantic and, even then only due to compiler voodoo before the preprocessor. That is, * if I include complex.h and use _Complex directly, I get the warning * if I include complex.h and use "complex", no warning * if I include complex.h and use "complex", and preprocess the source (-E), the result contains plain _Complex and if I try to compiler that, I get a warning. > http://ftp.mcs.anl.gov/pub/petsc/nightlylogs/archive/2013/11/17/build_master_arch-linux-c89_thrash.log > > CC arch-linux-c89/obj/src/sys/objects/pinit.o > In file included from /sandbox/petsc/petsc.clone-2/include/petscsys.h:326:0, > from > /sandbox/petsc/petsc.clone-2/include/petsc-private/petscimpl.h:8, > from src/sys/objects/pinit.c:6: > /sandbox/petsc/petsc.clone-2/include/petscmath.h:119:16: warning: ISO C90 > does not support complex types [-Wpedantic] > typedef double _Complex PetscComplex; BuildSystem currently ignores all compiler warnings so just changing the test would not be enough. (We should fix that.) Note that all of this discussion is moot if the user elides -pedantic when using -std=c89, and that we already pass -Wno-long-long to get around one piece missing from C89 that we really need.
pgp87WTeD_Srf.pgp
Description: PGP signature
