Re: c++/10796: [3.3/3.4 regression] ICE (segfault) when defining an enum with two values: -1 and MAX_INT_64BIT

Re: c++/10796: [3.3/3.4 regression] ICE (segfault) when defining an enum with two values: -1 and MAX_INT_64BIT

[giovannibajo]

Old Synopsis: gianormous enum values
New Synopsis: [3.3/3.4 regression] ICE (segfault) when defining an enum with two values: -1 and MAX_INT_64BIT

State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed
State-Changed-By: bajo
State-Changed-When: Thu May 15 10:40:02 2003
State-Changed-Why:
    Confirmed. To make it clearer, the following code snippet
    ICEs GCC:
    ------------------------------------------------
    enum test 
    {
        one = -1,
        two = 0xffffffffffffffff
    };
    ------------------------------------------------
    pr10796.cpp:4: error: integer constant is too large for "long" type
    pr10796.cpp:5: internal compiler error: Segmentation fault
    Please submit a full bug report,
    
    I call the code legal because it would be possible to use
    "unsigned long long" as underlying type for such an
    enumerator (at least on x86, where its size is 8 bytes),
    even if I don't know what the C++ ABI says about this.
    Anyway, we shouldn't segfault on this for sure.
    It's a regression wrt 2.95 (which was failing gracefully).

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=10796