On Sun, Oct 16, 2016 at 10:09:12AM +0200, Johannes Schindelin wrote: > > Good catch. It technically needs to check the lower bound, too. In > > theory, if somebody wanted to add an enum value that is negative, you'd > > use a signed cast and check against both 0 and ARRAY_SIZE(). In > > practice, that is nonsense for this case, and using an unsigned type > > means that any negative values become large, and the check catches them. > > I am pretty certain that I disagree with that warning: enums have been > used as equivalents of ints for a long time, and will be, for a long time > to come. I'm not sure I agree. IIRC, Assigning values outside the range of an enum has always been fishy according to the standard, and a compiler really is allowed to allocate a single bit for storage for this enum. > Given that this test is modified to `if (command < TODO_NOOP)` later, I > hope that you agree that it is not worth the trouble to appease that > compiler overreaction? I don't mind if there are transient warnings on some compilers in the middle of a series, but I'm not sure when "later" is. The tip of "pu" has this warning right now when built with clang. I'm happy to test the TODO_NOOP version against clang (and prepare a patch on top if it still complains), but that doesn't seem to have Junio's tree at all yet. -Peff