From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-12428-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 18590 invoked by alias); 3 Feb 2002 22:52:21 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 18517 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2002 22:52:18 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2002 22:52:18 -0000
Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.34 #1 (Debian))
	id 16XVUp-0006s0-00; Sun, 03 Feb 2002 17:52:27 -0500
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 14:52:00 -0000
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFA: complex numbers in c-valprint.c
Message-ID: <20020203175227.A26302@nevyn.them.org>
Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>,
	gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
References: <20020130233143.A21333@nevyn.them.org> <npk7tuw5gd.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <npk7tuw5gd.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i
X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00043.txt.bz2

On Sun, Feb 03, 2002 at 05:44:50PM -0500, Jim Blandy wrote:
> 
> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> > 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.
> 
> {0, 0} looks to me like GDB's syntax for array literals.  In ISO C
> programs, don't you just write complex literals as x+I*y?  What's wrong
> with GDB printing that?
> 
> If you say, "It shouldn't be an expression!", then I'll just say, "We
> already print negative numbers as an expression!"  Lexically speaking,
> C integer literals can't have a sign.  `-3' is an application of the
> prefix operator `-' to the literal `3'.  Since the spec promises that
> the compiler will fold constant expressions, you don't need a
> dedicated syntax for negative numbers.  I assume the same thinking is
> behind the lack of any syntactic support for complex literals.

x + y * I, I think.  That's nice; I didn't realize C99 and <complex.h>
supported ``I''.

OK with that syntax change?

> (The bikeshed should be a nice yellow-green, I think.)

...

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