(2014/04/07 14:27), Karl Tomlinson wrote:
It is allowed in N3242. I think the relevant sections are
5.2.9 Static cast
Thank you for the pointer.
I found a floating copy of n3242.pdf at the following url.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2011/n3242.pdf
I think 7.2 10 is
chiaki ISHIKAWA writes:
I think 7.2 10 is also relevant here.
--- quote ---
An expression of arithmetic or enumeration type can be converted
to an enumeration type explicitly. The
value is unchanged if it is in the range of enumeration values of
the enumeration type; otherwise the
On 2014-04-07 6:00 AM, Karl Tomlinson wrote:
chiaki ISHIKAWA writes:
I think 7.2 10 is also relevant here.
--- quote ---
An expression of arithmetic or enumeration type can be converted
to an enumeration type explicitly. The
value is unchanged if it is in the range of enumeration values of
On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 11:03:57 -0400, Zack Weinberg wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 10:13 PM, Karl Tomlinson mozn...@karlt.net
wrote:
Does WARNINGS_AS_ERRORS make the default:MOZ_CRASH()
unnecessary?
No, because it's possible that the thing you're testing is not
actually a valid enum value,
(2014/04/07 10:16), Karl Tomlinson wrote:
because enumeration types may hold values that don't match any of
their enumerator values.
Is this allowed by C (or C++) specification today?
[Yes, I know the compiler in the past did not care much.]
I thought the stricter warnings of compilers today
chiaki ISHIKAWA writes:
(2014/04/07 10:16), Karl Tomlinson wrote:
because enumeration types may hold values that don't match any of
their enumerator values.
Is this allowed by C (or C++) specification today?
It is allowed in N3242. I think the relevant sections are
5.2.9 Static cast
10 A
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
On 04/02/2014 07:37 AM, Aryeh Gregor wrote:
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com
wrote:
The downside of turning this on would be that any switch
statements that *deliberately* include only a subset of the
enumerators,
On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Zack Weinberg za...@panix.com wrote:
The downside of turning this on would be that any switch statements
that *deliberately* include only a subset of the enumerators, plus a
default case, would now have to be expanded to cover all the
enumerators.
If there are
On 04/01/2014 08:56 AM, Zack Weinberg wrote:
The downside of turning this on would be that any switch
statements that *deliberately* include only a subset of the
enumerators, plus a default case, would now have to be expanded to
cover all the enumerators. I would try it and report on how
Zack Weinberg writes:
This is a bit of a tangent, but: There are a whole bunch of places in
layout, and probably elsewhere, where we have the following catch-22:
if you have a switch statement over the values of an enumeration, gcc
and clang (with -Wall) will warn you about enumeration values
On 4/1/14, 10:22 AM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
So, we have on the order of ~4400 switch statements that would
potentially need expanding to avoid tripping this warning.
clang on OS X reports 1635 -Wswitch-enum warnings (switch on enum not
handling all enum cases). gcc reports 1048
11 matches
Mail list logo
