From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugs-return-493633-listarch-gcc-bugs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 90032 invoked by alias); 29 Jul 2015 10:30:47 -0000
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
Received: (qmail 90014 invoked by uid 48); 29 Jul 2015 10:30:43 -0000
From: "anders.granlund.0 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/67047] GCC accepts ill-formed program with enumerator not representable in uintmax_t
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:30:00 -0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: anders.granlund.0 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-67047-4-OjVacCECes@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-67047-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-67047-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg02523.txt.bz2

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67047

--- Comment #5 from Anders Granlund <anders.granlund.0 at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #4)
> Yes you can verify that with
> 
> static_assert( std::is_same<std::underlying_type<decltype(x)>::type,
> unsigned __int128>::value, "");
> 
> I suppose there should be a diagnostic with -Wpedantic (Clang has a
> -Wenum-too-large warning).

Nice use of type traits there for the confirmation. Yes, a -Wpedantic warning
is what we want here.

I haven't tried this with the c compiler (the online compiler i'm using does
not support c mode), but this bug may exists there also.