@nongnu.org
Subject: Re: [Tinycc-devel] Compilation error while including LAPACKE
Just curious, if I do need complex how hard is it to implement it? I
presume if the user wants to use LAPACKE or similar numerical library
they will run into similar problems
Any pointers would be much appreciated
Just curious, if I do need complex how hard is it to implement it? I
presume if the user wants to use LAPACKE or similar numerical library
they will run into similar problems
Any pointers would be much appreciated.
Many thanks
Chris
On Sat, 9 Apr 2022 at 17:45, Domingo Alvarez Duarte wrote:
>
>
After your last message I've tried defining "_Complex" to empty and for
the simple test it compiled, probably if you are not using complex this
trick could work:
=
#include
#define _Complex //make it e noop
#include
int main() {
printf("Hello World!\n");
return 0;
}
Output:
Sorry I guess I'm not familiar with TCC, but I suppose this is
something TCC hasn't implemented yet? having dug into the archives a
little more the only other mention of complex type support with TCC
was in 2015.
https://www.mail-archive.com/tinycc-devel@nongnu.org/msg06428.html
If complex types
The problem seem to be related with "Complex" rather than "lapacke":
#include
#include
int main() {
printf("Hello World!\n");
return 0;
}
Output:
tcc -c cmath.c
In file included from cmath.c:2:
In file included from /usr/include/complex.h:106:
