From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=Jpkq=A7=gnu.org=gcc-refused-email@sourceware.org>
Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::e])
	by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1D3B3858C66
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 10 May 2023 11:29:03 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org F1D3B3858C66
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gnu.org
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gnu.org
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org;
	s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=MIME-version:References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:
	Date; bh=5z3A8MkDDZyT3KynbGvbhNoG1PB9SOspqNXd2sQhGso=; b=OjfrLDHywevDQF9v3Lgn
	XIJU7W//C+icmr/xx8rSlf+Ivewqsd0RA1x1AeLkEoQdIRtaHH8Y339Z0ljWyCjzqwtUA63cmFZkN
	1x8NeqmjEvBHxddpU0eVTULXhDcoAGgNW/lEZGxJjg85sH8NcxKmcPeiaA9PMSxir7nO2e90F+r4g
	XrABvFJHUwPmgf5nwPr3QSnvnaWOySq/nJ1ycHAQdiiMmzF1Qg0kBjmnEEtsYquJpGpHAcbXRpuoy
	q3BmMRCSESiu17XRMZPJUzBWU2w6e+FDZ23D+HVGGpMzAvwbdvQ1pqASrsvhov01+aTC7T5CrnUVr
	c6X8a37/9sJW4g==;
Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7)
	by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256)
	(Exim 4.90_1)
	(envelope-from <eliz@gnu.org>)
	id 1pwi0E-0000bW-3D; Wed, 10 May 2023 07:29:02 -0400
Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 14:30:07 +0300
Message-Id: <831qjoa0g0.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
Cc: fweimer@redhat.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jakub@redhat.com,
	arsen@aarsen.me
In-Reply-To:
	<CAH6eHdS0KEyfLdE9fvTJ3aLtudKXcL9PyqPASJJVEgTMD6FaUQ@mail.gmail.com>
	(message from Jonathan Wakely on Wed, 10 May 2023 09:04:12 +0100)
Subject: Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14
References: <877cth66qb.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <CAGWvnykoEtT0BQtuN70DN6tWohtf=Mm7SW55psZvVmj3OvKUEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH6eHdS5=AED+7MSe0prr8CZ-sYqnD159OjhTp9=R-a0aBZ3qw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20230509102201.6aa2a7d14fdb2f1e7abff449@killthe.net> <87r0rp5uf8.fsf@aarsen.me>
 <83ttwla1ep.fsf@gnu.org> <CAH6eHdS-7USHzX3rPJaR66sEdjG+-nHp7mDb0gD7ceBnp+Fmpg@mail.gmail.com>
 <83lehx9vix.fsf@gnu.org> <ZFqZ25xKm4w4IkqF@tucnak> <83fs859unu.fsf@gnu.org>
 <87y1lx1avj.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <83ednoapb6.fsf@gnu.org>
 <CAH6eHdS0KEyfLdE9fvTJ3aLtudKXcL9PyqPASJJVEgTMD6FaUQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Spam-Status: No, score=2.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_BARRACUDACENTRAL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
X-Spam-Level: **
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org
List-Id: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>

> From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
> Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 09:04:12 +0100
> Cc: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, "gcc@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>, 
> 	Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>, Arsen Arsenović <arsen@aarsen.me>
> 
> void foo(int);
> void bar() { foo("42"); }
> 
> Why should this compile?

Because GCC is capable of compiling it.

> You keep demanding better rationale for the change, but your argument amounts to nothing more than
> "it compiles today, it should compile tomorrow".

It compiles today with a warning, so that whoever is interested to fix
the code, can do that already.  The issue at hand is not whether to
flag the code as highly suspicious, the issue at hand is whether
upgrade the warning to errors.  So let's talk about the issue at hand,
not about something else, okay?