From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-61593-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 24127 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2002 14:25:45 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 24120 invoked from network); 15 Oct 2002 14:25:44 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO Cantor.suse.de) (213.95.15.193)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Oct 2002 14:25:44 -0000
Received: from Hermes.suse.de (Charybdis.suse.de [213.95.15.201])
	by Cantor.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 18152146B5; Tue, 15 Oct 2002 16:25:44 +0200 (MEST)
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 07:54:00 -0000
From: Michael Matz <matz@suse.de>
To: Jamie Lokier <egcs@tantalophile.demon.co.uk>
Cc: Kevin Lawton <kevinlawton2001@yahoo.com>, <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Request of new __attribute__ for switch statements (elimination
 of the bounds check)
In-Reply-To: <20021015014101.GB27718@bjl1.asuk.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0210151624140.20702-100000@wotan.suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00817.txt.bz2

Hi,

On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Jamie Lokier wrote:

> [... strict enum proposal ...]
>
> (It would be appropriate to add a warning when an enum with this
> attribute is converted to an integer).

That's not the problematic direction.  I can't see why converting such an
enum to an integer would be dangerous.  But converting _to_ such an enum
should get a warning.


Ciao,
Michael.