https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66701
--- Comment #2 from Jason ---
(With due sense of dread:) I note that the __cxxabiv1 seems to have a v1 in it.
Why not define a v2 with a better signature? Although I realise that this is a
quality-of-implementation issue, why should an apparently
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gcc-bugs at hussar dot demon.co.uk
Target Milestone: ---
When I compile my program with -O1 it fails, but using the options in [1] it
succeeds. Does the web site need updating with the
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=59980
--- Comment #3 from Jason ---
C-style enums decay to the underlying integer representation, this particular
behaviour helps complicate considering how any modification to the diagnostic
might be implemented. Enum-classes are not without their own
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: gcc-bugs at hussar dot demon.co.uk
Created attachment 31978
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=31978&action=edit
Example source code producing the diagnostic.
I
