This is the mail archive of the gcc@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: G++ enums 'underlying type'

From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
To: Paul Schlie <schlie at comcast dot net>
Cc: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 2004 22:53:39 +0100
Subject: Re: G++ enums 'underlying type'
References: <BDF88F83.86B2%schlie@comcast.net>

Paul Schlie wrote:

Agreed, to clarify: an enumeration (enumerated type, i.e. enum)
representation need be no larger than the smallest compatible integer
type, which I believe was the question.

Actually, the question was rather different: which is the *actual* representation used by one specific implementation, that is the GNU C++ compiler? I know what the standard says in general about this, but, having noticed that even for an empty enum the underlying type appear to be 4-bytes wide, I wondered whether smaller underlying types are ever used in our implementation...

... but, it's not a big deal: we have got more serious issues ;)

Paolo.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: G++ enums 'underlying type'
  - From: Paul Brook
- Re: G++ enums 'underlying type'
  - From: Gabriel Dos Reis
- Re: G++ enums 'underlying type'
  - From: Paul Schlie

References:
- Re: G++ enums 'underlying type'
  - From: Paul Schlie

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