From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <SRS0=IZ1n=BB=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 16C993858CDA
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Fri, 12 May 2023 06:16:40 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 16C993858CDA
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=t9+4TRMpx+Vi1CED7fnD8FEU+j/t3RpXCR5Ob2tcxYo=; b=qy+gzEtJx94G
	ernDDTMMDwxx6/wORFQb6dKfQjMPWg8deD8UVfRuZB1R+2t7/SsZSgAvsbWGa4DRYjKzWKlhTkrjg
	7YHeVXrWL7IwRWULjzLQl+ixLoTTW+Ph1lYLDvqLie5q8gvhgwBl92BYlNz1hs6Bc4ZqNECEptaaO
	3IeQyj12lI6C//zOSAKPpDAi3zVeJzqU5XP1Il3e1YWAqHD+E8y6fg8xT+fKjv0upjrEqW3Jc9jNt
	odJeCkdZ+BjbQnDzdKkPZOqVkuDUegcvOP5SOKyeZtaTcEWtZ5VZ3eOT33DZl8QPEoGOoW7KrnrLD
	lCPxieFvM7FFH+fZUeztbA==;
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 1pxM51-0003Yt-6d; Fri, 12 May 2023 02:16:39 -0400
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 09:17:50 +0300
Message-Id: <83jzxe3wfl.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz93@gmail.com>
Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <55b2eefe-7788-0937-dba4-6f5ffa212435@gmail.com> (message from
	Eli Schwartz on Thu, 11 May 2023 18:30:20 -0400)
Subject: Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14
References: <87mt2behdl.fsf@yahoo.com>
 <57238276-5966-98d6-d5f0-f5451013ed17@gmail.com> <83354375x3.fsf@gnu.org> <55b2eefe-7788-0937-dba4-6f5ffa212435@gmail.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: <gcc.gcc.gnu.org>

> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 18:30:20 -0400
> Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> From: Eli Schwartz <eschwartz93@gmail.com>
> 
> On 5/11/23 2:12 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > 
> > 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.
> 
> 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?

See above: that repeating the story of -traditional could result in
net loss for the FOSS movement.

> 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?

No, the moral is not to introduce breaking behavior without very good
technical reasons.