----- Forwarded message from [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: Gennaro Prota <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Enums and gcc's long long
To: Gabriel Dos Reis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi Gabriel and sorry if this is sort of spam. I should have posted
this to the relevant list but I have some news server problems.
Perhaps you can forward it? (Perhaps it's already in Bugzilla, or it
isn't a bug at all)
// compiled with gcc version 3.4.2 (mingw-special)
// g++ -Wall -ansi -pedantic-error EnumSign.cpp
//
#include <ostream>
#include <iostream>
enum E { a = -1, x = 0xFFFFFFFF };
void f( signed )
{
std::cout << "signed" << std::endl;
}
void f( unsigned )
{
std::cout << "unsigned" << std::endl;
}
int main()
{
E e;
f( e );
}
Output:
$ g++ -Wall -ansi -pedantic-error EnumSign.cpp
EnumSign.cpp: In function `int main()':
EnumSign.cpp:19: error: call of overloaded `f(E&)' is ambiguous
EnumSign.cpp:7: note: candidates are: void f(int)
EnumSign.cpp:12: note: void f(unsigned int)
Given that I used -pedantic-error, the compiler shouldn't use long
long as underlying type of the enum (as it seems to do) and flag the
enumerator declaration as ill-formed. Am I missing anything?
Thanks.
--
Gennaro Prota
https://sourceforge.net/projects/breeze/
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
----- End forwarded message -----
