Re: Report from the additional type errors for GCC 14 BoF at Cauldron

[Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>]

On 9/26/23 02:28, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote:
> My understanding of the consensus goes as follows:
> 
> * We want to make some changes in this area for GCC 14.
> * We should do the same thing that Clang does: default to the relevant
>    -Werror= options.
> * Unlike regular warnings, these warnings-as-errors should also apply
>    to system headers.
> * At least implict-int and implicit-function-declaration should be
>    upgraded to errors in this way.
> * It's too early to make the () changes and bool-as-keyword from C2X
>    for GCC 14.
> * We should fix the missing scope of the int-conversion warnings
>    (PR109827).  Likweise for incompatible-pointer-types (PR109826).
> 
> Is this summary accurate?
I wasn't there, so I can't attest to accuracy.  It does look like a 
reasonable plan for gcc-14 though.

> 
> I think the open issues are:
> 
> * Do we want to implement something else beside implicit-int and
>    implicit-function-declaration?  (Candidates are int-conversion and
>    incompatible-pointer-types, and the void vs non-void part of
>    return-type, maybe others as previously discussed on the list.)
> * How do we divide up the test suite cleanup work?
Not to open a can of worms, but shouldn't these be evaluated along the 
same basic criteria?  ie, what's Clang doing here, are these 
warnings-as-errors and thus apply to system headers, etc.  ANd the 
biggie, do any of these issues tend to mask correctness errors in the 
wild at a level roughly similar to implicit 
int/implicit-function-declaration?

Jeff