public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "egallager at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/96284] Outdated C features should be made errors with newer standards
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 05:57:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-96284-4-ebFUvnENvH@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-96284-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96284
Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |egallager at gcc dot gnu.org,
| |fw at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to David Brown from comment #0)
> While C has tried to remain backwards compatible with each new standards
> revision, some changes have been made so that particularly unsafe features
> from old code are no longer supported. gcc has (reasonably enough) tried to
> keep support for old features, but when something has been deprecated for
> decades, perhaps it is time for it to be treated as an error by default and
> require an explicit flag. (This is in the same style as bug 85678 making
> "-fno-common" the default.)
>
> For example, implicit function declarations from K&R C were made obsolescent
> in C90, and removed from the language in C99. But by default, they still
> only cause a warning (-Wimplicit-function-declaration) in gcc, no matter
> what standard is picked.
>
> Could this be made an error by default
> (-Werror=implicit-function-declarations) ? Let those who want to compile
> old code with implicit function declarations, do so with an explicit flag.
I think Florian Weimer tried this and it broke the majority of configure
scripts in existence...
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-28 5:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-22 13:16 [Bug c/96284] New: " david at westcontrol dot com
2020-07-22 14:09 ` [Bug c/96284] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-07-22 14:51 ` redi at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-07-22 17:18 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-07-22 17:33 ` msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-07-28 5:57 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2020-07-28 7:20 ` david at westcontrol dot com
2020-07-28 7:39 ` fw at gcc dot gnu.org
2021-12-15 7:01 ` egallager at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-01 7:12 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-01 7:12 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-01 7:12 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-01 7:12 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-01 7:12 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-01 7:15 ` fw at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-01 7:15 ` fw at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-01 8:21 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-01 8:21 ` sjames at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-12-01 8:41 ` david at westcontrol dot com
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=bug-96284-4-ebFUvnENvH@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \
--to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).