X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to djgpp-workers-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=Eqos2LC2/9JT15EQH2qx8gJYA6Mge0PI3KyPEITh5EE=;
        b=uNqNn5vc1YvlFnMT2pdjVx5OE3x4dGoZpbacuW9/E+0Cm6HY7Gp4e+BHoQyGCb3Be7
         PlmHeXrPLk9dxzbaVFRb/Apfu8OVI/vTJ2lJTPoH98WpZTfttJPHBVZbRU1HDZc5lAkC
         dIchzDHK+ijnCovfWJbXn1ek/oEQdETa3JUIQ=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <201107011814.p61IERDY021019@envy.delorie.com>
References: <BANLkTikW3CVu0QEHyFwgfpvzqNoMR6Tfrg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<83tyb6qce3 DOT fsf AT gnu DOT org>
	<BANLkTi=q_JbhptgWTi8ZN7mtq9NO9zPX0g AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201107011526 DOT p61FQs24012782 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<BANLkTi=BU4UzOR+RtD9hJRCtKq6eR3AYog AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201107011539 DOT p61FdYjI013658 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<BANLkTi=HfCnAD4WUndyU_bdnP6wXuOPo0A AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201107011548 DOT p61FmWQW014052 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<BANLkTinA0i1sOT4tM4igv6Y1aR+3vdnNJg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201107011557 DOT p61FvXVP014582 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<BANLkTim-07ErkunBix8U46KYFF497HKAPA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201107011614 DOT p61GEu8r015173 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<4E0DFC80 DOT 2070607 AT iki DOT fi>
	<BANLkTinPMEVyiceCG5QEjRDsTwqWqfUuGg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<BANLkTi=+dUg8py11+BweccQtUdum1pxApA AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201107011734 DOT p61HYlRK019374 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<BANLkTi=rTRfAoChLEvb+2QCFQNYkcFKTQg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201107011753 DOT p61Hr3XO020234 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
	<BANLkTinrOAihDo1B_uTbWccdOKfFXs7ujw AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
	<201107011814 DOT p61IERDY021019 AT envy DOT delorie DOT com>
Date: Fri, 1 Jul 2011 21:22:46 +0300
Message-ID: <BANLkTimenPPmJOxj6GHMQ38nvzRcfPGQ+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: gcc-4.4: conflicting types for built-in function 'cabs' and 'cabsf'
From: Ozkan Sezer <sezeroz AT gmail DOT com>
To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id p61IMpgq030193
Reply-To: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: djgpp-workers AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:14 PM, DJ Delorie <dj AT delorie DOT com> wrote:
>
> Why _Complex and not just complex ?
>
> NAME
>       cabs, cabsf, cabsl - absolute value of a complex number
>
> SYNOPSIS
>       #include <complex.h>
>
>       double cabs(double complex z);
>       float cabsf(float complex z);
>       long double cabsl(long double complex z);
>

Because gcc doesn't recognize "complex" but _Complex is builtin
to it.  AFAIK, complex type is supposed to be defined in complex.h
which djgpp doesn't have.  (I reserve my right to be wrong here :)

--
O.S.