https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104205
--- Comment #5 from joseph at codesourcery dot com ---
Printing an expression within the diagnostic message is generally
problematic, but it might be good to change the caret location to point to
the expression rather than the keyword "case" (
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104205
Eric Gallager changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Commen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104205
--- Comment #3 from Stephen Wassell ---
Thank you for the response! I think the cause of our confusion was that we were
focusing on "constant" in the warning message rather than "integer". Our
original code had a few layers of macros so the sign
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104205
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
> It should say something about undefined behaviour instead.
The problem is for integer constants, it is not undefined at runtime but rather
invalid code at compile time.
>Should there also be a warning f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104205
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL|https://godbolt.org/z/4Tr1q |
|xaqv