This is the mail archive of the
gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: No effect of -fshort-enums..is it a bug
- From: Paul Brook <paul at codesourcery dot com>
- To: gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
- Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>,Robert Dewar <dewar at adacore dot com>,Dave Korn <dave dot korn at artimi dot com>,'John Love-Jensen' <eljay at adobe dot com>,"'Gaurav Gautam, Noida'" <gauravga at noida dot hcltech dot com>,'MSX to GCC' <gcc-help at gcc dot gnu dot org>
- Date: Thu, 22 Sep 2005 20:03:12 +0100
- Subject: Re: No effect of -fshort-enums..is it a bug
- References: <SERRANOevWWGxegIqun000001d8@SERRANO.CAM.ARTIMI.COM> <4332E0DF.80500@adacore.com> <20050922183118.GA11115@nevyn.them.org>
On Thursday 22 September 2005 19:31, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 12:50:39PM -0400, Robert Dewar wrote:
> > of course, but the behavior of a compiler with a special implementation
> > dependent switch is not specified by the standard! Switches can do any
> > amount of violence to the standard you like, the only requirement is
> > that there be a defined set of switches which gives standard defined
> > semantics.
>
> Except that the point I've been trying to make for the last day is that
> -fshort-enums does no damage to the standard. At least for C99.
It's also worth noting that -fshort-enums is the default on some targets, as
required by the platform ABI.
Paul