Bugfix request

Bugfix request

[Piotr Wyderski]

Hello,

I would like to kindly ask somebody to fix PR38064,
as the bug is very annoying -- it makes the use of
enum class virtually impossible. Most of my "GCCBUG"
workaround comments refer to this one.

For a quick reference:

enum class E { elem };

int main()
{
        E e = E::elem;
        if (e == E::elem);
        return 1;
}
g++ -std=c++0x tc1.cpp
tc1.cpp: In function 'int main()':
tc1.cpp:6: error: invalid operands of types 'E' and 'E' to binary 'operator=='

Best regards
Piotr Wyderski

Re: Bugfix request

[Robert Dewar]

Piotr Wyderski wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I would like to kindly ask somebody to fix PR38064,
> as the bug is very annoying -- it makes the use of
> enum class virtually impossible. Most of my "GCCBUG"
> workaround comments refer to this one.

Since this is particularly important to you, why not take
the opportunity to dig in and see if you can figure out
the necessary fix. Bugs only get fixed if someone volunteers
to do the fix!
> 
> For a quick reference:
> 
> enum class E { elem };
> 
> int main()
> {
>         E e = E::elem;
>         if (e == E::elem);
>         return 1;
> }
> g++ -std=c++0x tc1.cpp
> tc1.cpp: In function 'int main()':
> tc1.cpp:6: error: invalid operands of types 'E' and 'E' to binary 'operator=='
> 
> Best regards
> Piotr Wyderski

Re: Bugfix request

[Piotr Wyderski]

Robert Dewar wrote:

> Since this is particularly important to you

It is not "particularly important" to me, it's just a bug
with a known workaround (i.e. a cast to the enum's
base type). But a very annoying one.

> why not take the opportunity to dig in and see if you
> can figure out the necessary fix.

Frankly: because I know nothing about GCC internals
and am not interested in becoming a wizard GCC
developer. I do enjoy writing my hobbyists asynchronous
execution framework in C++0x using GCC as an excellent
tool for the job (on many levels: as the primary code base
compiler and a semi-dynamic code generator) but I do not
enjoy writing the tool itself. GCC wishes to support C++0x
as soon as possible, so the bug will eventually be fixed anyway.
My message was merely a user feedback from the trenches
of a large scale  application  of the experimental C++0x
support in GCC, intended to help its real developers to
assing an appropriate priority to the bug. Call it a profile
-gudided prioritization if you wish. You may help fixing the
bug or completely ignore this feedback -- both possibilities
are perfectly OK, it's up to you. But I see nothing here to
discuss about, so I rest my case.

> Bugs only get fixed if someone volunteers to do the fix!

Indeed. And, as you can see, there are volunteers who
enjoy GCC development and share my opinion that the
bug is quite important: its status has been rapidly changed
to confirmed and a volunteer has been assigned to fix it.
So I would like to thank these fellows very much.

Best regards
Piotr Wyderski