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

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.

Wichert.

-- 
Wichert Akkerman <[email protected]>    It is simple to make things.
http://www.wiggy.net/                   It is hard to make things simple.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum
  - From: Mike Waychison <[email protected]>

References:
- Re: share/private/slave a subtree
  - From: Roman Zippel <[email protected]>
- Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum
  - From: Bryan Henderson <[email protected]>
- Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum
  - From: Wichert Akkerman <[email protected]>
- Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum
  - From: Mike Waychison <[email protected]>

Prev by Date: Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum
Next by Date: Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum
Previous by thread: Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum
Next by thread: Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [Kernel Newbies] [Netfilter] [Bugtraq] [Photo] [Gimp] [Yosemite News] [MIPS Linux] [ARM Linux] [Linux Security] [Linux RAID] [Video 4 Linux] [Linux for the blind]