From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-393035-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 24048 invoked by alias); 28 May 2012 15:52:53 -0000
Received: (qmail 24038 invoked by uid 22791); 28 May 2012 15:52:53 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,TW_CX
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from localhost (HELO gcc.gnu.org) (127.0.0.1)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 May 2012 15:52:40 +0000
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/53502] [4.8 Regression] Bootstrap broken with --disable-build-poststage1-with-cxx
Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 15:53:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: rejects-valid
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.8.0
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: CC
Message-ID: <bug-53502-4-BnS6pzp7LI@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-53502-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-53502-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-05/txt/msg02653.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53502

Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jakub at gcc dot gnu.org

--- Comment #6 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-05-28 15:52:39 UTC ---
I believe because for C++ that kind of typedef isn't useless when the enum is
anonymous - the typedef gives it a name.
On
int
foo ()
{
  typedef enum { A = 1 } E1, E2;
  typedef enum E { B = 1 } E3, E4;
  return A + B;
}

C warns about E{1,2,3,4}, while C++ warns just about E{2,3,4}, but not E1.