On 10/29/2014 05:47 AM, Thomas Preud'homme wrote:
From: Nathan Sidwell [mailto:nat...@codesourcery.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2014 2:30 PM
On 10/09/14 09:25, Jason Merrill wrote:
I would think we want to handle this up in the existing defaulted_int
block:
my thought was to at least put it next to the explicit_int = -1 above.
It seems more sensible to keep it in this block as the existing
defaulted_int block is for types for which it is not an error to omit the
int type specifier.
Since this is a GNU extension, I think we want to be compatible with the
C front end, which has
else if (specs->complex_p)
{
specs->typespec_word = cts_double;
pedwarn (specs->locations[cdw_complex], OPT_Wpedantic,
"ISO C does not support plain %<complex%> meaning "
"%<double complex%>");
}
right after the code that parallels the block I mentioned in my earlier
mail.
Jason
