From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-393341-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 19720 invoked by alias); 31 May 2012 17:48:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 19707 invoked by uid 22791); 31 May 2012 17:48:43 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.3 required=5.0	tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED
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; Thu, 31 May 2012 17:48:31 +0000
From: "paolo.carlini at oracle dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/53524] [4.7/4.8 Regression] Bogus and unsuppressible enum comparison warning
Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 18:05:00 -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: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: paolo.carlini at oracle dot com
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 4.7.1
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields:
Message-ID: <bug-53524-4-waz5ONhb0K@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-53524-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-53524-4@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/msg02959.txt.bz2

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53524

--- Comment #16 from Paolo Carlini <paolo.carlini at oracle dot com> 2012-05-31 17:48:06 UTC ---
In any case I recommend not mixing together here different issues: the first
one, subject of this report, is overeager warning in open enum context with
conditional operators (I understand that by now we agree that the warning is
behaving as designed, only it seems sensible to have a way to at least
controlling it, cmp C front end, EDG); the second one is about speculative
defects in the way the C++ front end handles enumerated types. For the latter
we need testcases in Bugzilla, actually a separate PR should be opened.