From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 5D38538582A5; Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:36:09 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 5D38538582A5
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1705070169;
	bh=sF4y69Q/Etn5avm9uOzNR4ya+R8l2SIdFehcy7/Ck/0=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=LGssVTS1L6nAyWudOMx/hy5HSA9fMqm6JGl3gAsSfxT41Xq9Ccer+hrewQ/Iya78K
	 J+MSE2D0LdT6gLJE6xR183qzyM2W3PAHymOM7S7MWPujzdCC+uwmV8Wv7nm3wKEBwF
	 84bA92+tA8zEkeJgEIVw23xEMEI2KyKyzJg8K6uI=
From: "segher at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/89072] -Wall -Werror should be defaults
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2024 14:36:07 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: enhancement
X-Bugzilla-Who: segher at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-89072-4-z9tyc6wuEq@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-89072-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-89072-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D89072

--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool <segher at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #3)
> In GCC 14 several warnings will be turned to errors by default with C99 o=
r a
> newer C standard.  But generally -Werror should *never* be the default.=20
> Besides the reasons Segher and Rich have already given, the standard also
> disallows the compiler from randomly rejecting code just because it "looks
> suspicious".

Huh?  Where does the standard require that?  The closest to it is 4/8: "An=
=20
implementation shall be accompanied by a document that defines all
implementation-defined and locale-specific characteristics and all
extensions." which essentially *allows* such restrictions.  It just has to
be documented.

Of course a good implementation will not reject valid code without a very
good reason to do that.=