http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48536
Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed| |2011.05.03 20:34:19
Ever Confirmed|0 |1
--- Comment #2 from Jason Merrill <jason at gcc dot gnu.org> 2011-05-03
20:34:19 UTC ---
Agreed.
"Otherwise the type of the initializing value is the same as the type of the
initializing value of the preceding enumerator unless the incremented value is
not representable in that type, in which case the type is an unspecified
integral type sufficient to contain the incremented value. If no such type
exists, the program is ill-formed."
Instead of complaining about overflow, we should adjust the type of EI_2.
But I'm pretty sure #1 and #2 are not equivalent because the initializer for
FI_2 wraps to 0.
