[cfe-commits] r62245 - in /cfe/trunk: lib/Sema/CMakeLists.txt lib/Sema/IdentifierResolver.h lib/Sema/Sema.h lib/Sema/SemaCXXScopeSpec.cpp lib/Sema/SemaDecl.cpp lib/Sema/SemaDeclCXX.cpp lib/Sema/SemaExpr.cpp lib/Sema/SemaExprCXX.cpp lib/Sema/SemaL

[Douglas Gregor]

On Jan 16, 2009, at 1:51 PM, Daniel Dunbar wrote:
> I would love to be proven wrong on this topic! And perhaps there is
> some potential for a Support/Compiler.h define which would add the
> default: assert(0) case for systems that don't support the stronger
> check?
>
> Our current convention seems to be the default: one, though, so above
> all I prefer internal consistency (or a transition towards).


Can anyone point out a flaw in the code under discussion? It will  
produce the appropriate warnings if we miss an enumerator, and it  
doesn't seem to trigger any additional warnings under any particular  
compiler or compilation flags. It's not broken, so why are we trying  
to fix it?

	- Doug