Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum

From: Mike Waychison <mike@waychison.com>
To: Wichert Akkerman <wichert@wiggy.net>
Cc: Bryan Henderson <hbryan@us.ibm.com>,
	Roman Zippel <zippel@linux-m68k.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	bfields@fieldses.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxram@us.ibm.com,
	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu>,
	Pekka J Enberg <penberg@cs.helsinki.fi>,
	Alexander Viro <viro@parcelfarce.linux.theplanet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum
Date: Fri, 08 Jul 2005 13:23:03 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <42CEE0A7.8090006@waychison.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20050708181502.GD1165@wiggy.net>

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