_Complex constant

[CBFalconer]

Harald van D?k said:

But _Complex is not within that common subset, because gcc does
*not* claim to provide complex or imaginary support in line with the
requirements of C99. See http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html if need be.

and, when gcc becomes fully C99 compliant, the -ansi -pedantic
switches will access that.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Richard Heathfield wrote: [...]

But _Complex is not within that common subset, because gcc does
*not* claim to provide complex or imaginary support in line with the
requirements of C99. See http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html if need be.

and, when gcc becomes fully C99 compliant, the -ansi -pedantic
switches will access that.

<OT>
Actually, I'd expect "-ansi" to retain its current meaning
(conformance to the C89/C90 standard) indefinitely. It's equivalent
to "-std=c89", and it's likely to remain so. But if you want to be
sure of which standard you're asking it to support, "-std=c89" is more
specific and less likely to change.
</OT>

The C standard is more properly referred to as ISO rather than ANSI
anyway.

 

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote: [...]

But _Complex is not within that common subset, because gcc does
*not* claim to provide complex or imaginary support in line with the
requirements of C99. See http://gcc.gnu.org/c99status.html if need be.

and, when gcc becomes fully C99 compliant, the -ansi -pedantic
switches will access that.

<OT>
Actually, I'd expect "-ansi" to retain its current meaning
(conformance to the C89/C90 standard) indefinitely. It's equivalent
to "-std=c89", and it's likely to remain so. But if you want to be
sure of which standard you're asking it to support, "-std=c89" is more
specific and less likely to change.
</OT>

GNU has stated that they plan to do as I posted.