https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89450
Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |INVALID
--- Comment #7 from Martin Liška <marxin at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
> 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".
I don't insist on that, I'm fully aware that it's a hackish approach.
My motivation is chromium package which we build with gcc in openSUSE.
In order to handle all
warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
in switch statements, we have a huge patch:
https://build.opensuse.org/package/view_file/network:chromium/chromium-beta/chromium-non-void-return.patch?expand=1
Clang is more tolerant to c++ enums:
$ cat wreturn.cpp
enum A
{
a,
b,
c
};
int foo(int argc)
{
switch ((A)argc)
case a:
case b:
case c:
return 0;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
return foo(argc);
}
$ clang++ -Wall wreturn.cpp
[no output]
