On 16 November 2016 at 18:38, Nico Weber via cfe-commits < cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> I'm a bit surprised that this landed, given that gcc bug. I can see the > motivation for the gcc bug: If you say your enum is going to need > underlying 8 bits, then warning that your bitfield where you store it is > smaller _is_ surprising. > Yeah, suggesting adding an underlying type to the enum to solve this problem seems like a bad idea, since that fundamentally changes the nature of the enum -- typically allowing it to store a lot more values, and making putting it in a bitfield a bad idea. I'm not sure if landing this while gcc still behaves the way it does is a > good idea :-( > > On Thu, Nov 10, 2016 at 9:38 PM, Mehdi AMINI <mehdi.am...@apple.com> > wrote: > >> mehdi_amini added a comment. >> >> > So when this modification tells the developer to add 'unsigned' to >> their enum, they are subsequently causing a warning to occur in GCC. >> > >> > I have commented on the bug on GCC for this ( >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51242#c28), but it looks >> unlikely to be fixed. >> > >> > Should we go ahead and add this warning when following its instructions >> will cause a warning in the GCC compiler? Even though GCC is at fault here, >> I'm not sure what the right thing is to do. >> >> GCC seems to agree that they should fix it: >> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414 ; so I wouldn't >> consider it a blocker. >> >> But I'm not using GCC either, and I don't know what is our usual policy, >> so it'd be nice to have another opinion here. >> >> >> https://reviews.llvm.org/D24289 >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > cfe-commits mailing list > cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits > >
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
