https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60978
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60978
--- Comment #11 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #10)
> Interesting, in glibc 2.18 (at least in glibc-headers-2.18-16.fc20.x86_64)
> they are in the same enum.
The in.h is actually part of kernel, not glibc itsel
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60978
--- Comment #10 from Jason Merrill ---
(In reply to Paul Pluzhnikov from comment #9)
> In glibc-2.19, include/netinet/in.h:
Interesting, in glibc 2.18 (at least in glibc-headers-2.18-16.fc20.x86_64) they
are in the same enum.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60978
--- Comment #9 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Jason Merrill from comment #8)
> You shouldn't get the warning about IPPROTO_ICMP vs IPPROTO_ICMPV66, as they
> are members of the same anonymous enum.
They are?
In glibc-2.19, include/netin
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60978
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60978
--- Comment #7 from Paul Pluzhnikov ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #6)
> Warns since forever (checked up to GCC 4.3.x), confirmed.
Interesting. In my non-reduced test case, the warning is new with gcc-4.9.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60978
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status|UNCONFIRME
