From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 2BDB23959CA8; Wed, 26 Oct 2022 08:39:07 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 2BDB23959CA8
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1666773547;
	bh=Jbw8BhVVXApBlz0PLqB9v24NyKN3MdL+6LONKWX45Y4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=V7VT+Gu9FcTKY4ejbyWOhw3nf2WmRriPXAgDdhbXcFPC/O3iGcxOcOq0aMeihOgXV
	 9vDS2d0zaUk38DzwVuXICjdvTINlRx2FdEIw9zIZDLkL2Bu9kmGP+Iefp/5eQchw5n
	 TQTwOwdazbV/sP8ePnPihCsDjuZWbVAGTq4fvN0U=
From: "jirislaby at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/107405] enums can be wrongly long in gcc-13 (in gnu99)
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2022 08:39:05 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: 13.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jirislaby at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-107405-4-hnG91K4R2e@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-107405-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-107405-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D107405

--- Comment #10 from Jiri Slaby <jirislaby at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #9)
> (In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #4)
> > Another question is why B is affected by A at all? Also sizeof of that =
enum
> > (if one gives it a name) is 8 with gcc-13. That is not allowed by the
> > standard, IMO.
>=20
> C99, C11, and C17 all say:
>=20
> "The expression that defines the value of an enumeration constant shall be
> an integer
> constant expression that has a value representable as an int."
>=20
> So enum { A =3D 0xffffffff } is a constraint violation and not allowed by=
 the
> standard anyway. Such code was always non-conforming and relying on an
> (undocumented?) GCC extension, so the standard has nothing to say about t=
he
> type.

Ah, that's correct. So the question then is: is it a feature we can rely on
(even if undocumented -- can the behavior can be documented in gcc?), or we
should drop enum uses for values > MAX_INT?=