This is the mail archive of the
binutils@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the binutils project.
Re: [RFA] resubmit: change defines to enums
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- To: Alan Modra <amodra at bigpond dot net dot au>
- Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder at cygnus dot com>, binutils at sources dot redhat dot com, nickc at redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 10:42:40 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFA] resubmit: change defines to enums
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <200204112155.g3BLtur10644@reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com> <20020412033723.GK1042@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au> <3CC05CE8.2798C373@redhat.com> <20020420083653.GF31788@bubble.sa.bigpond.net.au>
Alan Modra wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2002 at 11:07:36AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > Alan Modra wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Apr 11, 2002 at 02:55:56PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > > >
> > > > * archures.c: Change bfd_mach_ constants to enums.
> > > > * bfd-in2.h: Regenerate.
> > >
> > > Have you checked that this compiles with a K&R compiler? If so, then
> > > it's OK.
> >
> > I haven't -- but why wouldn't it? There are lots of enums already in
> > bfd.
>
> I had an idea that enums had different scope rules under old compilers.
> Maybe it's structure fields, and maybe I'm dreaming.
I think it's struct tags. That's still true, by the way.
AFAIK, enums never had different scope rules.