On Wed, Aug 03, 2011 at 01:40:42PM +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> On 03.08.2011 13:05, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> >I don't believe that the standard allows for an implementation of
> >enums as unsigned integers - after all, individual enum literals can
> >be given corresponding negative integer values.
> 
> C99 says:
> 
> >Each enumerated type shall be compatible with char, a signed integer type, or an
> >unsigned integer type. The choice of type is implementation-defined,110) but shall be
> >capable of representing the values of all the members of the enumeration.

Are we moving to C99?

C89 says:

    Each enumerated type shall be compatible with an integer type; the
    choice of type is implementation-defined.

Cheers,
David.
-- 
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778  AIM: dfetter666  Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter      XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

In response to

• Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings at 2011-08-03 10:40:42 from Heikki Linnakangas

Responses

• Re: Further news on Clang - spurious warnings at 2011-08-04 05:59:07 from Heikki Linnakangas

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:	From: Alvaro Herrera	Date: 2011-08-04 01:32:21
	Subject: Re: Compressing the AFTER TRIGGER queue
Previous:	From: Robert Haas	Date: 2011-08-04 01:17:21
	Subject: Re: Compressing the AFTER TRIGGER queue