From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-il1-x134.google.com (mail-il1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 447223856968 for ; Thu, 11 May 2023 03:14:24 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 447223856968 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-x134.google.com with SMTP id e9e14a558f8ab-331514f56a6so15806105ab.2 for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 20:14:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1683774863; x=1686366863; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language:subject :references:to:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Np+fUT+NZFhP/GuPlUV0QU2O1W0JKp1kyNm/AhLCSfY=; b=Bx9jsn5z++9MsEBXmOVkmTmvUpYum3xuekiGpVY5QXBeTHcRkP/Ntn4EVEsA5LAyGh z3VJxMrWtw/vgVB1hYL9K9YPRLkQH5hQ7OwcK4g9pRCufBEFPtSwGQvRiVxFVbuD3/hh cG+OAtBVaq56Fa8aJrdYhUfxv/yQZxzWry+9kPh0vvMtFv5OcrklfbC9zRzYFbqujLk2 MIYBxabJ4WZcAmSLZFc18Vs1CA0BCPFfcCD0Y6EWsSTkE0qdY0Elit4/RAY4Q7R2f2Uz 62XzyqhPJuGFlTAJYDPMnbrPBPnuaQevPTL7PWSwWZJuK3dIwPY/lyp9H3qSTsLuXqy0 v8PQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683774863; x=1686366863; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:from:content-language:subject :references:to:user-agent:mime-version:date:message-id :x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Np+fUT+NZFhP/GuPlUV0QU2O1W0JKp1kyNm/AhLCSfY=; b=IeDfaaoGv5hF/tUoGbl86XXFqBZFNjAYDH3AKPG73I3n0f0adXYVC74e2QRAsAZfks z+Dsfq3JxXmnPb5Ha7yrHwW37Xt5uxwcUn2e/PcJaI2N3y0S3/SQgV9On/tgRoI87tfE 6ia6QdQZqwyVd7ZchvsBV9jUdDia2cFeyyczBAkiiBcQ7pEtnxXGRVaLxq7OSu5YZa9x YIU395eZ0M7mayzhLlOY6Lrhz7zZf0XJrlODjYU4QoPQ2rFAhnCmSqo3nKUhrSo4pLDQ 4THz4Q5UuXfPK9nsfWu0XxTuOPO6/8SyeRTSEq8+KROQzFhWwfECsaEAVsm0oYVni5au N4rw== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDyn9/xlNoZtuEp1bBCx0SBbmznWz/gke0wefMO8oJLtW1Vhy1p4 t7C+yOTb/l2/RP5l3ibXoNQ= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4IvNb0mz3mviuXBPvq7+ZFTgvNcT7CRxRchg90AA7lenu17Prwhyv5QIVSKP61Lvbtzf2t4g== X-Received: by 2002:a92:2c01:0:b0:335:dd1:7915 with SMTP id t1-20020a922c01000000b003350dd17915mr10707031ile.12.1683774863322; Wed, 10 May 2023 20:14:23 -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 m5-20020a0566380dc500b00416650ba62esm3429328jaj.76.2023.05.10.20.14.22 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 May 2023 20:14:23 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <57238276-5966-98d6-d5f0-f5451013ed17@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 23:14:20 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.5.1 To: luangruo@yahoo.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org References: <87mt2behdl.fsf@yahoo.com> Subject: Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14 Content-Language: en-US-large From: Eli Schwartz X-Clacks-Overhead: GNU Terry Pratchett In-Reply-To: <87mt2behdl.fsf@yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.2 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: > Unfortunately, we do not have the source code for our compiler. Would > you care to ask people here to restore `gcc -traditional'? This would appear to be a self-inflicted wound. If I understand the chain of events properly... - gcc drops support for -traditional - you wish to use code that does the badness - you purchase a proprietary compiler that permits it anyway - to avoid making it produce invalid results, you hack your linker You'd rather hack your compiler, but you cannot do it because you purchased a proprietary compiler and didn't purchase the rights to its source code. (BTW, there's a FOSS compiler that you can hack on if you like.) That's all fine and well, you do you. What I do not understand is, two things. First of all, why are you calling this "traditional C"? It is not "traditional C". It isn't C. It is not-C. Second of all, why is this GCC's problem? You are not a user of GCC, apparently. Moreover, this discussion is not about -traditional! It's about implicit-function-declaration. And implicit-function-declaration does not have the same problem as -traditional, because implicit-function-declaration ***WILL*** have a flag that permits people who are users of GCC, and just want implicit-function-declaration back. So you have exactly what you want out of this conversation. We concede. C type errors by default will come with a flag to disable them. -- Eli Schwartz