Re: [PATCH] add warnings enum-to-int and int-to-enum

[Kamil Dudka <kdudka@redhat.com>]

On Thu September 3 2009 11:42:30 Christopher Li wrote:
> Can we just set the expression->ctype to the enum type
> instead of adding the *enum_type? I think the current expr->ctype
> can be reached from enum_type->ctype.base_type any way.
> In other words, we do care about expression is enum type vs int type
> in this patch.
>
> After the type evaluation(and possible warning), we can convert that
> enum type back to the base int type because the back end does not
> care about enum.

Do you want to store the correct enum type to expression->ctype and overwrite 
it later with some integral type? What's the advantage of this approach? 
(instead of preserving ABI which is already changed to 0.4.1). I don't think 
the information about type for enum constant is useful only for issuing 
warnings like this. Some SPARSE clients might also need such information.

> I think fixing the regression should be a separate patch from
> the this patch which adding new feature. It is easier to review
> as well.

Sure if anybody is able to split it... Unfortunately we have no reference for 
the "original" behavior of -Wmismatch-enum. I didn't found it documented 
anywhere and the "test-case" from the referred commit is not really useful as 
a test-case. I have not enough time for reverse engineering...

I think the tests included in the patch have good enough coverage to prevent 
you from a future regression and it sounds more important to me than 
documenting previous regressions :-)

Kamil