From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from fencepost.gnu.org (fencepost.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::e]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F21AC3858C2B for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 02:31:57 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org F21AC3858C2B 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=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=uKg9g4+EmwuT1D5gLAOK5dwc07CGxza6yPWO//ku9i8=; b=mt+3hHyebWva HGt72CTa2msbdPFeT4WPhrypmeW/zNCzyRj/NmogczMW8VKG7QWJtHtGXJa8G+sU1Zq41PxFemtCs BXXfK5rPmDMIKXlKHZoTZpyvPfIkO+bB4wcJCZTm3597iKOIfvL0HdAHHlRIlXfKyyFkLSFh4A3cB Hdwon2LO8qxetF73Xn1R/bKm1vtfk6kyMtKLipBc4N1XUbNXKolw7WhYM7kDKlcwlil5Ag+MxgYQm CDOcm9wItfU1jwVFOYexl9BGCjoSZEVa/FdOK4IuRwZwjUqKFQQfxV7cggVQC+n+0pmE1j/CM86OQ NmfLBD0h8vRoW7RqePQJMQ==; 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 ) id 1pwZcT-0000qE-Bz; Tue, 09 May 2023 22:31:57 -0400 Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 05:33:01 +0300 Message-Id: <83ednoapb6.fsf@gnu.org> From: Eli Zaretskii To: Florian Weimer Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org, jakub@redhat.com, jwakely.gcc@gmail.com, arsen@aarsen.me In-Reply-To: <87y1lx1avj.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> (message from Florian Weimer on Tue, 09 May 2023 22:57:20 +0200) Subject: Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14 References: <877cth66qb.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <20230509102201.6aa2a7d14fdb2f1e7abff449@killthe.net> <87r0rp5uf8.fsf@aarsen.me> <83ttwla1ep.fsf@gnu.org> <83lehx9vix.fsf@gnu.org> <83fs859unu.fsf@gnu.org> <87y1lx1avj.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> 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: > From: Florian Weimer > Cc: Jakub Jelinek , Eli Zaretskii , > jwakely.gcc@gmail.com, arsen@aarsen.me > Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 22:57:20 +0200 > > * Eli Zaretskii via Gcc: > > >> Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 21:07:07 +0200 > >> From: Jakub Jelinek > >> Cc: Jonathan Wakely , arsen@aarsen.me, gcc@gcc.gnu.org > >> > >> On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 10:04:06PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote: > >> > People who ignore warnings will use options that disable these new > >> > errors, exactly as they disable warnings. So we will end up not > >> > >> Some subset of them will surely do that. But I think most people will just > >> fix the code when they see hard errors, rather than trying to work around > >> them. > > > > The same logic should work for warnings. That's why we have warnings, > > no? > > People completely miss the warning and go to great lengths to show that > what they are dealing is a compiler bug. (I tried to elaborate on that > in <87cz394b63.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>.) If GCC errors out, that > simply does not happen because there is no object code to examine. And then people will start complaining about GCC unnecessarily erroring out, which is a compiler bug, since there's no problem producing correct code in these cases.