https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89450
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #6 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Jonathan Wakely from comment #5)
> (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".
This reminds me, I think there are some other related bug reports out there,
but I can't find them right now...
