Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!reader01.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: structs passed by copy
Date: Sun, 29 Jan 2023 13:30:32 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <86pmaxf2pz.fsf@linuxsc.com>
References: <76ec6d87-0f5d-4671-b4c8-7023e3da787an@googlegroups.com> <tqeoet$2r8gf$1@news.xmission.com> <20230120230138.1225d36e5ad8e5f07401c67a@gmail.com> <tqf121$2re3i$1@news.xmission.com> <1btu0jojlm.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> <87edrnifxn.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <tqk855$386s5$2@dont-email.me> <87sfg2gszl.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <tqkcal$393b1$1@dont-email.me> <87o7qqglva.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86fsc0hl4i.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87a628g440.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <86bkmogc9c.fsf@linuxsc.com> <87h6wfeodq.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87cz73em5o.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com> <87zga7jaci.fsf@zotaspaz.fatphil.org> <87tu0eigxl.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Injection-Info: reader01.eternal-september.org; posting-host="8ce3893f3eb724e7abcf14dabf224dec"; logging-data="3076884"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX185xjhYtisyYeol91Vh9dqxvC2sOCDhRkc="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:nd3VonT+1jNsZ/u7kXa+HDUQ/2Q= sha1:6c9Wg0vgf07gBuJgUby/VmVLHks=
Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:169106

Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:

> Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> writes:
>
>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> It would be nice if some energetic person would enter a bug
>>>>> report on the gcc bug list site, regarding the missing imaginary
>>>>> types.  I have put in gcc bug reports in the past but don't have
>>>>> as much time for that now.
>>>>
>>>> *raises hand*

Thank you for taking that up.

>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=108531
>>> "Imaginary types are not supported, violating ISO C Annex G"
>>
>> Thanks.  Clear enough.
>>
>>> After I submitted that, I found that it's probably a duplicate of
>>> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=15720
>>> which was resolved as "INVALID".  I disagree with that resolution.
>>
>> Agree.  It almost seems as if precedent for having a type of
>> bug is justification for more such bugs.
>>
>> I guess this explains a lot of the world of software generally.
>
> I've also sent a suggestion to the C standard editors (the email
> addresses at the top of the N3054 draft) suggesting that imaginary types
> should be optional even if __STDC_IEC_559_COMPLEX__ and
> __STDC_IEC_60559_COMPLEX__ are defined.  But it's probably too late to
> make such a change for C23.

Are imaginary types included in the IEC_559/IEC_60559 materials?  If
they are then I think imaginary types should be mandatory for any C
implementation that defines the __STDC_IEC_{559,60559}_COMPLEX__
symbol(s).