https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89450
--- Comment #2 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Andrew Pinski from comment #1) > Well the documentation says this: > basically, a value that can be represented in the minimum number of bits > needed to represent all the enumerators > > So if we are going to change the definition of -fstrict-enum, this would be > a very visiable change and even a difference from the documentation from > previous versions. > > I would think we should not change it as it is documented exactly this way. Yep, I would preserve the current behavior. So having -fstrict-enum=[12], where =1 will be current definition and =2 the strengthen one, should work
