https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
Sam van Kampen changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||sam at segfault dot party
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
--- Comment #12 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to eric-bugs from comment #9)
> This does not seem like correct behavior to me either. The warning should be
> based on the maximum declared enum value, not the maximum possible value
> held by t
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
Erik Rainey changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||erik.rainey at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
--- Comment #10 from Tom Tromey ---
I ran into this again, went to file a bug, and then found that
I'd already filed the bug...
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
eric-bugs at omnifarious dot org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||eric-bugs at omnifariou
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
Matt Godbolt changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||matt at godbolt dot org
--- Comment #8 fr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIR
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to Xidorn Quan from comment #5)
> It seems G++ always throw that warning for enum class as bitfield, even when
> the enum class is actually empty:
> > enum class K {};
> > struct S {
> > K v : 5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
Xidorn Quan changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||quanxunzhen at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
Pavel Revak changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pavel.revak at gmail dot com
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
--- Comment #3 from Tom Tromey ---
(In reply to Daniel Krügler from comment #2)
> (In reply to Tom Tromey from comment #1)
> > However, the bug still exists if the underlying type is not fixed:
> >
> > enum class K {
> > V = 27
> > };
>
> Thi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
Daniel Krügler changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daniel.kruegler@googlemail.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61414
--- Comment #1 from Tom Tromey ---
Jonathan pointed out that this is not really a bug because
an enumeration with a fixed underlying type has a different
definition of its underlying values.
However, the bug still exists if the underlying type i
13 matches
Mail list logo
