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]