On Wed, 2016-02-24 at 19:35 +0000, Luís Oliveira wrote: > On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 7:29 PM, Attila Lendvai <att...@lendvai.name> wrote: > > some projects out in the wild use DEFCENUM with e.g. :DOUBLE > > base-type. this is not in adherence with the C standard (only integer > > types are valid enum types, and it's at least int sized). my > > refactoring of enums introduced an explicit check for this, and it > > broke some projects in ql. to alleviate that i've commented out this > > new check in master. > > > > the question: > > > > should we roll with this? does anyone see any problems or potentially > > surprising behavior? e.g. with the semantics of the enum increments > > and the double base type? or something else? > > It sounds a bit silly at first, but from CFFI's point of view, a > DEFCENUM is really just a mapping between symbols and... something > else. > > What would we gain from being a bit more draconian about the base type?
We gain being standards-compliant. A C enum is an int, period. -- Stelian Ionescu a.k.a. fe[nl]ix Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
