https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100700
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Right, and of course there are many -Wreturn-type cases where no switches or
enums are involved at all.
The warning is about the missing return from the end of the function, not about
the switch that happ
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100700
Harald van Dijk changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||harald at gigawatt dot nl
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100700
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100700
gnzlbg changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100700
--- Comment #3 from Jonathan Wakely ---
(In reply to gnzlbg from comment #2)
> Until C++17, creating an enum value that's out-of-range of the enum was
> unspecified behavior. In C++ standard >= 17 (e.g. -std=c++17), this became
> undefined behav
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100700
--- Comment #2 from gnzlbg ---
> in a call to f(-1) the function falls off the end,
Indeed, thanks. Using <= in the condition removes the warning.
> and ditto in a call to h ((enum E)2)
Until C++17, creating an enum value that's out-of-range
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=100700
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
Seve
