From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28049 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2013 04:32:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 28037 invoked by uid 89); 29 Apr 2013 04:32:23 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 04:32:22 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7BC082EB2C; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:32:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id klJhbxsN4tQB; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:32:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA8BE2E777; Mon, 29 Apr 2013 00:32:19 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 369C4C14AF; Sun, 28 Apr 2013 21:32:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 14:37:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCEMENT] GDB 7.6 released! Message-ID: <20130429043214.GV3525@adacore.com> References: <83k3nptk18.fsf@gnu.org> <837gjotnc9.fsf@gnu.org> <20130428073805.GU3525@adacore.com> <83ip36sjxd.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83ip36sjxd.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2013-04/txt/msg00856.txt.bz2 > > I am wondering why we are not seeing this on other platforms... > > Probably because I was using a _really_ old compiler (3.4.2) on the > machine where I saw this. This would suggest that I misunderstood the C standard regarding enum types. I thought that the size of a C enum was determined by the number of enumerators (ie just large enough to fit), which would mean that the compiler would need the full enum definition before being able to determine how to pass that enum in a function call. But the reference draft I have says: | Each enumerated type shall be compatible with an integer type. The | choice of type is implementation-defined,97) but shall be capable of | representing the values of all the members of the enumeration. I am still a little fuzzy on what "compatible" means in terms of constraints for the enum type. But perhaps the old compiler's warning is overzealous; and if that's the case, I am not sure of the value of avoiding erroneous warnings from really old compilers. -- Joel