Robert Dewar wrote: > Since this is particularly important to you
It is not "particularly important" to me, it's just a bug with a known workaround (i.e. a cast to the enum's base type). But a very annoying one. > why not take the opportunity to dig in and see if you > can figure out the necessary fix. Frankly: because I know nothing about GCC internals and am not interested in becoming a wizard GCC developer. I do enjoy writing my hobbyists asynchronous execution framework in C++0x using GCC as an excellent tool for the job (on many levels: as the primary code base compiler and a semi-dynamic code generator) but I do not enjoy writing the tool itself. GCC wishes to support C++0x as soon as possible, so the bug will eventually be fixed anyway. My message was merely a user feedback from the trenches of a large scale application of the experimental C++0x support in GCC, intended to help its real developers to assing an appropriate priority to the bug. Call it a profile -gudided prioritization if you wish. You may help fixing the bug or completely ignore this feedback -- both possibilities are perfectly OK, it's up to you. But I see nothing here to discuss about, so I rest my case. > Bugs only get fixed if someone volunteers to do the fix! Indeed. And, as you can see, there are volunteers who enjoy GCC development and share my opinion that the bug is quite important: its status has been rapidly changed to confirmed and a volunteer has been assigned to fix it. So I would like to thank these fellows very much. Best regards Piotr Wyderski
