From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17020 invoked by alias); 10 Nov 2004 00:42:34 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 17001 invoked by uid 48); 10 Nov 2004 00:42:28 -0000 Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 00:42:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20041110004228.17000.qmail@sourceware.org> From: "manus at eiffel dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20041109232340.18411.manus@eiffel.com> References: <20041109232340.18411.manus@eiffel.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c/18411] Warning not legitimate X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2004-11/txt/msg01194.txt.bz2 List-Id: ------- Additional Comments From manus at eiffel dot com 2004-11-10 00:42 ------- Thanks for your answer. I see that following the ANSI C standard forces you to do something. But I believe the right thing to do is: 1 - make it a compile time error (better to catch those errors at compile time rather than at run-time, like I did) 2 - make it a warning and generates the code that gcc generated in the past and that has been working for as long as I remember. But definitely don't do: - produces a warning and generate code that will crash your program at run-time. I'm definitely in favor of 2 as it would permit the code I have to continue to work, especially when I know that I provide all the type information to the C compiler so that it can generate the right code. Hopefully someone will listen or convince me otherwise With best regards, Manu -- http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18411