From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13637 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2004 06:11:50 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 13629 invoked by uid 48); 14 Aug 2004 06:11:49 -0000 Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2004 06:11:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20040814061149.13628.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20040813225931.17022.igodard@pacbell.net> References: <20040813225931.17022.igodard@pacbell.net> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/17022] Behavior of out-of-range enums X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-08/txt/msg01335.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2004-08-14 06:11 ------- Actually it is not undefined or implementation defined by the standard, it is unspecified which is a totally different ball game and we just define it as constants do the get anded, likewise with optimization where you can prove that the variable is a constant. Otherwise it is the same value as before this change. See: for unspecified vs. undefined Also see PR 15330 where we defined the defintion of what we want to be able to do which I am going to mark as a dup of. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 15330 *** -- What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |DUPLICATE http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17022