This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: underlying type of C++ enums

From: Alexandre Oliva <aoliva at redhat dot com>
To: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>
Cc: gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: 25 Apr 2002 21:11:09 -0300
Subject: Re: underlying type of C++ enums
Organization: GCC Team, Red Hat
References: <org01jtp31.fsf@free.redhat.lsd.ic.unicamp.br><wvl1yd3qtlg.fsf@prospero.cambridge.redhat.com>

On Apr 25, 2002, Jason Merrill <jason@redhat.com> wrote:

> I would think it would make more sense to fix tree_int_cst_lt.

I thought it made sense for it to make such the assumption that both
constants had the same types.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to introduce new entry points to
compare numbers without assuming their types both signed or both
unsigned?

Anyway, I'd rather go with a less pervasive change for 3.1...

-- 
Alexandre Oliva   Enjoy Guarana', see http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat GCC Developer                  aoliva@{cygnus.com, redhat.com}
CS PhD student at IC-Unicamp        oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist                Professional serial bug killer

Follow-Ups:
- Re: underlying type of C++ enums
  - From: Jason Merrill

References:
- underlying type of C++ enums
  - From: Alexandre Oliva
- Re: underlying type of C++ enums
  - From: Jason Merrill

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]