From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 108023 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2017 23:01:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 108000 invoked by uid 89); 29 Jun 2017 23:01:42 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_RED autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 23:01:39 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1dQiRM-0004iW-Kj from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 16:01:36 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.87) by svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1263.5; Fri, 30 Jun 2017 00:01:34 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dQiRG-0007V8-4S; Thu, 29 Jun 2017 23:01:30 +0000 Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2017 23:01:00 -0000 From: Joseph Myers To: Jeff Law CC: Prathamesh Kulkarni , gcc Patches , Marek Polacek Subject: Re: [ping * 2] PR78736: New C warning -Wenum-conversion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) To svr-ies-mbx-01.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.1) X-SW-Source: 2017-06/txt/msg02344.txt.bz2 On Thu, 29 Jun 2017, Jeff Law wrote: > On 05/23/2017 07:54 AM, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote: > > Hi, > > I would like to ping this patch for review: > > https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-05/msg00775.html > So was there any kind of resolution on the case in libcomp where we had > an assignment between two essentially equivalent, but distinct enums? I don't know. I approved this patch on the 12th subject to one correction, but see it hasn't yet been committed. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com