------- Comment #1 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org 2006-12-19 21:05 ------- C99 6.7.2.2 does not say that.
Read 6.7.2.2 which says: > The expression that defines the value of an enumeration constant shall be an > integer constant expression that has a value representable as an int. So the error with -pedantic is correct as 0U - 1 is not representable as an int. Also: Read 6.7.2.2/4 which says: > Each enumerated type shall be compatible with char, a signed integer type, or > an > unsigned integer type. The choice of type is implementation-defined,108) but > shall be capable of representing the values of all the members of the > enumeration. The enumerated type is incomplete until after the } that > terminates the list of enumerator declarations. http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-4.1.1/gcc/Structures-unions-enumerations-and-bit_002dfields-implementation.html Specifies our implementation-defined behavior. Now we do have different code with -pedantic and without -pedantic and that is a bug but that is PR 15236. -- pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED Resolution| |INVALID http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=30260
