public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 08:49:38 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-107405-4-sVYFVeh2SY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-107405-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=107405

--- Comment #11 from Jiri Slaby <jirislaby at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jiri Slaby from comment #10)
> 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?

I think section 4.9 of gcc manual actually defines this:

The integer type compatible with each enumerated type (C90 6.5.2.2, C99 and C11
6.7.2.2).

  Normally, the type is unsigned int if there are no negative values in the
enumeration, otherwise int. 

So as long as all are unsigned, all is fine.

So it remains to define what happens when there is an u/long (the case above).

  parent reply	other threads:[~2022-10-26  8:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2022-10-26  4:26 [Bug c/107405] New: enums can be long in gcc-13 jirislaby at gmail dot com
2022-10-26  4:28 ` [Bug c/107405] enums can be wrongly long in gcc-13 (in gnu99) jirislaby at gmail dot com
2022-10-26  6:55 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-26  7:08 ` marxin at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-26  7:27 ` jirislaby at gmail dot com
2022-10-26  7:31 ` jirislaby at gmail dot com
2022-10-26  7:45 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-26  7:53 ` jirislaby at gmail dot com
2022-10-26  8:04 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-26  8:21 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-26  8:39 ` jirislaby at gmail dot com
2022-10-26  8:49 ` jirislaby at gmail dot com [this message]
2022-10-26 16:55 ` [Bug c/107405] [13 Regression] enum change causing Linux kernel to fail to build due to Linux depending on old behavior pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-10-26 17:35 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2022-10-28 11:19 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-19  8:43 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-19 13:18 ` macro at orcam dot me.uk
2022-11-19 20:46 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-11-21 18:10 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2022-11-22 14:53 ` macro at orcam dot me.uk
2022-11-22 22:47 ` joseph at codesourcery dot com
2022-11-29 14:57 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-01-13 11:36 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-24  9:27 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bug-107405-4-sVYFVeh2SY@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
    --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).