[Bug c++/107763] -Wreturn-type false-positive with fully-covered switch over enum

2022-11-19 Thread lebedev.ri at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107763 --- Comment #5 from Roman Lebedev --- Thank you. Forwarded to https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/issues/59085

[Bug c++/107763] -Wreturn-type false-positive with fully-covered switch over enum

2022-11-19 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107763 --- Comment #4 from Andrew Pinski --- (In reply to Roman Lebedev from comment #2)> > Is this situation different in C++? looks like i set the component wrong. > Is this implementation-defined behavior, > or are you saying that clang is wrong

[Bug c++/107763] -Wreturn-type false-positive with fully-covered switch over enum

2022-11-19 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107763 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Pinski --- No, it is not different in C++. See PR 91950 for that.

[Bug c++/107763] -Wreturn-type false-positive with fully-covered switch over enum

2022-11-19 Thread lebedev.ri at gmail dot com via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107763 Roman Lebedev changed: What|Removed |Added Component|c |c++ --- Comment #2 from Roman Lebedev

[Bug c/107763] -Wreturn-type false-positive with fully-covered switch over enum

2022-11-19 Thread pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org via Gcc-bugs
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107763 Andrew Pinski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution|---