RFA: complex numbers in c-valprint.c

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

This patch fixes half of gdb/320.  The other half is a bug in GCC 3.x, that
I just CC'd gdb@ about.

Is this OK to commit?  Does anyone have a preference for {0, 0} vs. { re =
0, im = 0}?  I used the former.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

2002-01-30  Daniel Jacobowitz  <drow@mvista.com>

	* c-valprint.c (c_val_print): Handle TYPE_CODE_COMPLEX.

Index: c-valprint.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/c-valprint.c,v
retrieving revision 1.11
diff -u -r1.11 c-valprint.c
--- c-valprint.c	2001/11/10 20:44:37	1.11
+++ c-valprint.c	2002/01/31 04:26:09
@@ -459,6 +459,29 @@
       fprintf_filtered (stream, "<incomplete type>");
       break;
 
+    case TYPE_CODE_COMPLEX:
+      fprintf_filtered (stream, "{");
+      if (format)
+	print_scalar_formatted (valaddr + embedded_offset,
+				TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (type),
+				format, 0, stream);
+      else
+	print_floating (valaddr + embedded_offset, TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (type),
+			stream);
+      fprintf_filtered (stream, ", ");
+      if (format)
+	print_scalar_formatted (valaddr + embedded_offset
+				+ TYPE_LENGTH (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (type)),
+				TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (type),
+				format, 0, stream);
+      else
+	print_floating (valaddr + embedded_offset
+			+ TYPE_LENGTH (TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (type)),
+			TYPE_TARGET_TYPE (type),
+			stream);
+      fprintf_filtered (stream, "}");
+      break;
+
     default:
       error ("Invalid C/C++ type code %d in symbol table.", TYPE_CODE (type));
     }