https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89450
--- Comment #5 from Jonathan Wakely <redi at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #0)
> Issues is that:
>
> 14746 /* If -fstrict-enums, still constrain TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE. */
> 14747 if (flag_strict_enums)
> 14748 set_min_and_max_values_for_integral_type (enumtype,
> precision, sgn);
>
> is called for precision, which sets min = 0 and max = 7.
Because that's how enums work in C++, as required by the standard.
That's not an issue.
> What about doing:
>
> diff --git a/gcc/cp/decl.c b/gcc/cp/decl.c
> index 612afbacd27..46302b4a61d 100644
> --- a/gcc/cp/decl.c
> +++ b/gcc/cp/decl.c
> @@ -14745,7 +14745,10 @@ finish_enum_value_list (tree enumtype)
>
> /* If -fstrict-enums, still constrain TYPE_MIN/MAX_VALUE. */
> if (flag_strict_enums)
> - set_min_and_max_values_for_integral_type (enumtype, precision, sgn);
> + {
> + TYPE_MIN_VALUE (enumtype) = minnode;
> + TYPE_MAX_VALUE (enumtype) = maxnode;
> + }
> }
> else
> underlying_type = ENUM_UNDERLYING_TYPE (enumtype);
>
> I can also imagine another option level when desired.
Please no. -fstrict-enums currently makes the compiler *more* strictly
conforming, by following the rules of the standard. Your suggestion arguably
makes it *less* conforming, by deciding that valid values should emit a
warning.
What you want is not how enums work in C++. Please don't abuse -fstrict-enums
when what you want is "some other kind of enum, not one that strictly follows
the C++ standard".
