http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54140
--- Comment #3 from Aryeh Gregor 2012-07-31 16:18:14
UTC ---
Yeah, sorry, it was a bad example. Assigning 72 to this enum is undefined, so
maybe this behavior is justifiable. The real-world example I was looking at
didn't have that issue, thoug
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54140
Bug #: 54140
Summary: -Wswitch shouldn't complain about out-of-range values
that are cast to the correct type
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
--- Comment #11 from Aryeh Gregor 2012-07-23 11:00:01
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> You can submit an issue, see
> http://cplusplus.github.com/LWG/lwg-active.html#submit_issue
I sent an e-mail to Alisdair Meredith per the instructions on th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
--- Comment #5 from Aryeh Gregor 2012-07-20 12:39:00
UTC ---
Thanks. Is there any publicly-accessible summary of the previous discussion,
so that I can read it and not retread old ground? Also, if the WG agrees to
make the change in the next ve
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
--- Comment #2 from Aryeh Gregor 2012-07-20 12:00:57
UTC ---
See third-to-last paragraph of comment #0. AFAICT, gcc is currently correct
according to the standard, but I think the behavior specified by the standard
is undesirable. If gcc mainta
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54043
Bug #: 54043
Summary: [C++0x] cout << nullptr does not work
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.3
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: minor
Priority: P3
