------- 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. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31780