From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-il1-x12d.google.com (mail-il1-x12d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::12d]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A9283858CDA for ; Thu, 11 May 2023 22:30:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 5A9283858CDA 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-il1-x12d.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-3311691ebd0so21971595ab.1 for ; Thu, 11 May 2023 15:30:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683844223; x=1686436223; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc:to :content-language:subject:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=zXt0IcILuyL9lgWXd1Al2Darf8wo25TKnENwcBOIgMY=; b=l/mGkx7Qnm4JrSf/upjHgI8EDcun66Bch74VrTQDRf9xY5J7SGQtL+xpgiDIITi5vL InHhlxkZS4fa8AxMNlhwDjulkywRgwpSR4+yJ4aBYUww063YQKo2dJlFt1aGb4ASm7q2 9t+XHazMTN8fVbi7JKGckdtpLrDgUdgNloNQDSNjsG3X+B3/qmqbCapLFCEmYQU9Mjmh PVq8Ktgt9vQq3E2FtDabyF+36XD8Qivn1t3SGsVShJhaVK9V1/3msTZPp7k/T93IrR5m J3AmhEForNk+gOHB5uoVI4Btye0uALpUYuI1shRDiF+LoWXBPaIiorNdhHQhfBEix22/ YEpA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683844223; x=1686436223; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:references:cc: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=zXt0IcILuyL9lgWXd1Al2Darf8wo25TKnENwcBOIgMY=; b=Em40eohTOu8n6SZEZIDiEXs4qHBhkgaXufvESzy9dWEVDyWnDWxF8HBzQ+Z/rdvthT AM993qQaV87V2a9SxLltf2ZVDxUemgex1uB2TWSj6TnlJZ/CqI2fnK+7yzol/k60TYs3 8MuSKaJUPwabRF5CvwbMP5upKZ/SWg75Run5Oziv8Ab7P6ZzTGeY0ZR/z/CiPruD6GBD Q6fFu8gHfCXHGkKJBRjV86I5r4aruN8PbxMCoTGJbjmVyK50zEBIvmjzE/KfnOcw9GY8 P9SIuRjlpNhH7IC+r5K0Gd0X4sBDTqwklusY0KWNjT5neVhaUH/5Sl5a/VaK4MDaupkg BmRQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDw1AObHhuHbYFujzY4QhofKMhjTy4GDcJdqarTgj6FE2qTtWEo6 gI06HdeUFFntwL+xeJVbKq4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ5yuRMVer7EKrb7AJR7Af0uJzOTKGsN8xTwhEARTdHAgnj9j/wTPOX7CGYSaC2rzWrp4rIvRw== X-Received: by 2002:a92:d6c1:0:b0:331:8e32:a362 with SMTP id z1-20020a92d6c1000000b003318e32a362mr14791130ilp.5.1683844223427; Thu, 11 May 2023 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPV6:2600:1700:57f0:ca20:763a:c795:fcf6:91ea? ([2600:1700:57f0:ca20:763a:c795:fcf6:91ea]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id t12-20020a056e02060c00b00331833da1dasm4657312ils.35.2023.05.11.15.30.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 11 May 2023 15:30:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55b2eefe-7788-0937-dba4-6f5ffa212435@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 18:30:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1 Subject: Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14 Content-Language: en-US-large To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <87mt2behdl.fsf@yahoo.com> <57238276-5966-98d6-d5f0-f5451013ed17@gmail.com> <83354375x3.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Schwartz X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett In-Reply-To: <83354375x3.fsf@gnu.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,NICE_REPLY_A,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE 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 5/11/23 2:12 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 23:14:20 -0400 >> From: Eli Schwartz via Gcc >> >> Second of all, why is this GCC's problem? You are not a user of GCC, >> apparently. > > He is telling you that removing support for these old features, you > draw users away from GCC and towards proprietary compilers. > > One of the arguments in this thread _for_ dropping that support was > that by not rejecting those old programs, GCC draws some users away > from GCC. He is telling you that this change will, perhaps, draw some > people to GCC, but will draw others away from GCC. The difference is > that the former group will start using Clang, which is still free > software (at least some of its versions), whereas the latter group has > nowhere to go but to proprietary compilers. So the FOSS community > will have suffered a net loss. Something to consider, I think. Except this thread is not arguing to remove support for -std=c89 as far as I can tell? The argument is that on newer values for -std (such as the one GCC defaults to if no -std is specified), GCC should adapt its diagnostics better for the std in question. These newer -stds should stop issuing a warning diagnostic, and begin issuing an error diagnostic instead. The latter group most certainly does have somewhere to go other than proprietary compilers -- it can go to GCC with -std=c89 (or -Wno-* or -fpermissive or -fold-code or whatever the case may be). But I do not understand the comparison to -traditional. Which was already removed, and already resulted in, apparently, at least one group being so adamant on not-C that it switched to a proprietary compiler. Okay, understood. But at this point that group is no longer users of GCC... right? So what is the moral of this story? To avoid repeating the story of -traditional, and instead make sure that users of -std=c89 always have a flag they can use to indicate they are writing old c89 code? If so, then as far as I can tell, that was the original plan? The flag already exists, even. And the original proposal was to provide another flag that doesn't even restrict you to c89. -- Eli Schwartz