From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pl1-x62a.google.com (mail-pl1-x62a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::62a]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 972013858D35 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 12:22:54 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 972013858D35 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-pl1-x62a.google.com with SMTP id d9443c01a7336-1c3bd829b86so65369585ad.0 for ; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 05:22:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1695730973; x=1696335773; darn=gcc.gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uEn6rGJ83BeSN2v0bkZcaKCPFU0k0hwbiovRpa7WWhs=; b=dN/6LbIMg62j9gNkwSSqQU7cBbwAcVea4mg624nIKWW9KStuq/6f1WwikDPX/4JJEf /LXxw96ljOC1tOWRhJk3oVWzsMDcqGFkWz88TppRsN+vzRpTsuuKPaFybgx8ji0mL5cd qUcf5gvDlFp+WqH879//qOZYDKE7NaQQ6tcNrT2pBZRjghlB6+0cIpetyRpvdqz+/jZn Eq3Q18TITolOJPi1sf2L5fSKIcXdPOOD7tJbiNskKFNaGJjR2IDWGQW77kJ3geWyjpOl pOSgpj4D+0CJJFkPV4P/LfbR9bjSUByEkl9SgvZdaxooByugVOCW+Dr9nrSW+612YW5H XLyA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1695730973; x=1696335773; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=uEn6rGJ83BeSN2v0bkZcaKCPFU0k0hwbiovRpa7WWhs=; b=WVDIv6ZaZID5fcIARqEpJ7rZ0rwADbV0dGW6LmPvQp8lnaFvUfncjBUx/MB/F8aW3W k7AajjHKuQNFlt1/Psjw21O4iEM9ETDjwtiBwgcM+8p7b6qKeGCA5OtTPXUcG9FgGZ87 i8FEsHb+KyNpR8LD3UcKzMztQj2fVHmdUKadlOIR4FSXTQ39VqvoWIUi4CehaoTD1kR7 kDVZHCovzlWKKI2kRazRPtHixkN6ivGUMEI62B16U16RJZrasSmZ3ds5JKscWufrgx2F df8F2NSHm1RFaxVpvlUdP0zpScet8xrubuOrwDtg7DdmsBe4iQKyXXyS+/whf4U051y5 IuPw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxmDmD2N5yol7M/qO0cqof4aqJskOVABiLIIjjC/jv0ynWin8w9 /+hKSB0kTMsjFC0R862xrYKNleW2GYNQ0oHP X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHTBW1CKgYl0QQumSsxlL7H43RUYfzs6ETimBLrXQAN01TwUvQ5CryY9tsDkqgjhj8s1m4ZHA== X-Received: by 2002:a17:903:244e:b0:1bc:2c83:f770 with SMTP id l14-20020a170903244e00b001bc2c83f770mr8447556pls.45.1695730973376; Tue, 26 Sep 2023 05:22:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [172.31.0.109] ([136.36.130.248]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s17-20020a170902ea1100b001c59f23a3fesm4099687plg.251.2023.09.26.05.22.52 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 26 Sep 2023 05:22:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <52f4d828-92f3-4930-9992-e5899fc56d84@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2023 06:22:51 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: Report from the additional type errors for GCC 14 BoF at Cauldron Content-Language: en-US To: Florian Weimer , gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <87edilpcct.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> From: Jeff Law In-Reply-To: <87edilpcct.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: 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