On Jun 24, 2013, at 9:25 , David Blaikie <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jun 24, 2013 9:17 AM, "Jordan Rose" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Couldn't this create problems for very big positive enums, i.e. those > > larger than 2^63? > > Yep, that's the 'still a problem' I mentioned. > > > Not that this isn't strictly better than what we had before. > > Actually its not strictly better - I traded off one valid range for another. > It just happens to be the one we now get right is the same as GCC, which is > nice. GCC and clang both get the case you mentioned wrong in different ways > so far as I can tell > Well, abstractly no. In practice I would guess people use negative enums more often than really big positive enums. ;-)
_______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list [email protected] http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
