On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 03:39:32PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> I guess the question is, shall we store the minimum precision needed
> somewhere by finish_enum_value_list (perhaps only bother if the precision
> of the underlying type is not the same) or compute it each time again
> (which would
On Fri, Oct 20, 2017 at 11:59:39AM -0400, Jason Merrill wrote:
> > Still, warning when a bit-field can't hold all enumerators instead of
> > all values may be a good idea. I've looked into it, and it does require
> > recalculating the maximum and minimum enumerator value, since the bounds
> > of
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 3:15 PM, Sam van Kampen via gcc-patches
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:46:08AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
>> > Fair enough, I didn't know whether to change the way it currently was
>> > triggered. Do you think it should fall under -Wextra (I
On 10/19/2017 12:38 PM, Eric Gallager wrote:
On 10/16/17, Martin Sebor wrote:
On 10/16/2017 06:37 AM, Sam van Kampen via gcc-patches wrote:
..I just realised that the clang flag is -Wbitfield-enum-conversion, not
-Wenum-bitfield-conversion. Please apply the patch below
On 10/16/17, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 06:37 AM, Sam van Kampen via gcc-patches wrote:
>> ..I just realised that the clang flag is -Wbitfield-enum-conversion, not
>> -Wenum-bitfield-conversion. Please apply the patch below instead, which
>> has replaced the two words
On 10/18/2017 01:15 PM, Sam van Kampen wrote:
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:46:08AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
Fair enough, I didn't know whether to change the way it currently was
triggered. Do you think it should fall under -Wextra (I don't think it
falls under -Wall, since it isn't "easy to
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 09:46:08AM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> > Fair enough, I didn't know whether to change the way it currently was
> > triggered. Do you think it should fall under -Wextra (I don't think it
> > falls under -Wall, since it isn't "easy to avoid or modify to prevent
> > the
Fair enough, I didn't know whether to change the way it currently was
triggered. Do you think it should fall under -Wextra (I don't think it
falls under -Wall, since it isn't "easy to avoid or modify to prevent
the warning" because it may be valid and wanted behavior), or should it
be enabled by
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:31:10PM +, Joseph Myers wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Sam van Kampen via gcc-patches wrote:
>
> > +Wbitfield-enum-conversion
> > +C++ Var(warn_bitfield_enum_conversion) Init(1) Warning
> > +Warn about struct bit-fields being too small to hold enumerated types.
>
>
On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 08:56:05PM -0600, Martin Sebor wrote:
> On 10/16/2017 06:37 AM, Sam van Kampen via gcc-patches wrote:
> > ..I just realised that the clang flag is -Wbitfield-enum-conversion, not
> > -Wenum-bitfield-conversion. Please apply the patch below instead, which
> > has replaced
On 10/16/2017 06:37 AM, Sam van Kampen via gcc-patches wrote:
..I just realised that the clang flag is -Wbitfield-enum-conversion, not
-Wenum-bitfield-conversion. Please apply the patch below instead, which
has replaced the two words to remove the inconsistency.
2017-10-16 Sam van Kampen
On Mon, 16 Oct 2017, Sam van Kampen via gcc-patches wrote:
> +Wbitfield-enum-conversion
> +C++ Var(warn_bitfield_enum_conversion) Init(1) Warning
> +Warn about struct bit-fields being too small to hold enumerated types.
Any option supported for C++ should also be supported for ObjC++ unless
..I just realised that the clang flag is -Wbitfield-enum-conversion, not
-Wenum-bitfield-conversion. Please apply the patch below instead, which
has replaced the two words to remove the inconsistency.
2017-10-16 Sam van Kampen
* c-family/c.opt: Add a warning flag
This patch adds a warning flag for the warning described in bug report
#61414. My proposed warning flag is -Wenum-bitfield-conversion, which
corresponds with the warning flag that clang has for a similar warning.
2017-10-16 Sam van Kampen
* c-family/c.opt: Add a
14 matches
Mail list logo