http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48760
--- Comment #30 from Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-04-29 23:52:32 UTC --- (In reply to comment #29) > This is now fixed in 4_6-branch too in C++03 mode, not in C++0x mode, where we > would need list-initialization of __complex__. If people believe we can / > should do something else in the release branch, I'm all ears: if for example > people consider a better trade-off for the branch removing the constexpr from > the constructor in order to initialized in the body for C++0x mode too, I'm ok > with that. I'm of course biased here, but I value constexpr-ability over complex numbers with parts that are NaNs. *If* we cannot have list-initialization for _Complex, then I suggest we close this PR as WONTFIX.
