On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 11:17 -0800, Mike Gran wrote: > You are correct. There is a value in that macro called "_Complex_I" that is, > for some reason, being processed down to "__I", losing the word "Complex". > > What if you replace "_Complex_I" with "(0.0 + 1.0i)" ? > > Good Luck, > > Mike Gran
Replacing "_Complex_I" with "(0.0 + 1.0i)" and doing a fresh compile works - with the caveat that I had to remove -Werror from configure-generated CFLAGS to get past the type-punned warning. Now I need to figure out WTH is wrong with the AIX <complex.h> that _Complex_I is dereferencing as __I when the notes in that file clearly state that __I shouldn't ever be called directly. -- #include <stddisclaimer.h> /* Kevin Brott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> * Unix Systems Engineer - SA Group - Provtech * Providence Health Systems, Tigard, OR */ DISCLAIMER: This message is intended for the sole use of the addressee, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the addressee you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy, disclose, or distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received this message in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email and delete this message. _______________________________________________ Guile-user mailing list Guile-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-user
