From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mike Waychison Subject: Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:23:03 -0700 Message-ID: <42CEE0A7.8090006@waychison.com> References: <20050708180302.GC1165@wiggy.net> <42CEC17D.8020309@waychison.com> <20050708181502.GD1165@wiggy.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Bryan Henderson , Roman Zippel , Andrew Morton , bfields@fieldses.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxram@us.ibm.com, Miklos Szeredi , Pekka J Enberg , Alexander Viro Return-path: To: Wichert Akkerman In-Reply-To: <20050708181502.GD1165@wiggy.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Wichert Akkerman wrote: > Previously Mike Waychison wrote: > >>enums in C are (de?)promoted to integral types under most conditions, so >>the type-checking is useless. > > > It's a warning in gcc afaik and spare should complain as well. > Check again. You must be thinking of another language. Show me how you can get warnings out of this: enum foo { FOO, }; static enum foo doit(enum foo bar) { int i = bar; return i; } int main(void) { int i; i = doit(0); return 0; } Mike Waychison