------- Comment #27 from gdr at gcc dot gnu dot org 2005-11-16 18:44 ------- (In reply to comment #19) > There are only two choices: either __imag__ is an lvalue, and the code in > Comment #1 is valid, or __imag__ is not an lvalue, and the compiler should > issue an error. > > Nobody wants to see a warning about an uninitialized variable use on: > > __complex__ double t; > __imag__ t = 0.0; > __real__ t = 0.0; > > If Andrew doesn't like the fact that __imag__ is an lvalue, then Andrew should > complain to the C front-end maintainers. >
>From libstdc++ perspective, __imag__ ought to be an lvalue. This is a recurent issue for C++ complex<>. -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=23497
