On 2017-05-04 23:33 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote: > On 4 May 2017 at 16:39, Martin Sebor <msebor@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Assuming the code defines the enums as unnamed types, comparing > > their enumerators seems unlikely to be a problem. Or can you > > think of some accidental misuse that the warning would detect? > > I can't immediately think of any problem, except for encouraging the > hack, which I'm not fond of :-) But in C++03 we don't have constexpr and have to use hack... > > If there isn't one it might to detect the (legacy) idiom and > > suppress the warning in that case. Or add a warning suboption > > to control it, until the code transitions to the more modern > > way of doing things. Or perhaps only warn in C++ 11 mode and > > later. Maybe we should add something like "-Wenum-hack", and give a hint to use constexpr for C++11/14/17. -- Xi Ruoyao <ryxi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> School of Aerospace Science and Technology, Xidian University
