------- Comment #22 from mark at codesourcery dot com 2008-01-05 07:55 ------- Subject: Re: [4.2/4.3 regression] ICE with incompatible types for ?: with "complex type" conversion
gdr at cs dot tamu dot edu wrote: > | > 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>. I'm not sure what you mean by that. It's a public constructor; how do we know that there aren't users out there using it? How would they have known that they weren't supposed to use it? -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=31780