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 7A099386D61B
	for <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 10 May 2023 12:46:05 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 7A099386D61B
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=P1lRtq2iuFaG3twIA6Frz8lD7kGmN0ojhuY2+L/7kSk=; b=KHURwAOGQUdR
	DV+xMQzD3PAqKXkixOQxK6Iton3HhwaO+5Pv6fhgqY1uh+23JueEuQahEvH5ozRbycE/xYBKmfCHZ
	4ksmjROOcsUbzUeg8XluCNuMZlXYvtT7jbj5CN7RT/50g8p1eeuFHRGHASBuF+YVS/Mjp1Mt6riTT
	bmqrXHZsq+bRWiYdfNIoqvPxv1hXIMaryTxlDkS1NvkcVk3EgQGX8G2udz2PAFwomsSVIfeoC8OZQ
	mOkHysdsIcW9RJwOMWN2TYorSNu7vGG4TZCeBqfz7B7BoSKxtqJ63P/v0kBhx4DqKWfS+8v9wDm12
	4qXRBqRp3j0qRu/2ov5ouw==;
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 1pwjCm-00087s-SN; Wed, 10 May 2023 08:46:05 -0400
Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 15:47:11 +0300
Message-Id: <83jzxg8ib4.fsf@gnu.org>
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
To: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
Cc: david@westcontrol.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
In-Reply-To: <878rdwicyz.fsf@gentoo.org> (message from Sam James on Wed, 10
	May 2023 13:32:08 +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> <u3flqs$b2f$1@ciao.gmane.io>
 <83zg6c8lju.fsf@gnu.org> <878rdwicyz.fsf@gentoo.org>
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: Sam James <sam@gentoo.org>
> Cc: David Brown <david@westcontrol.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 13:32:08 +0100
> 
> > I'm okay with making it harder, but without making it too hard for
> > those whose reasons for not changing the code are perfectly valid.
> > This proposal crosses that line, IMNSHO.
> 
> Could you give an example of how to make it harder without crossing
> the line for you?

Not really: I'm not involved enough in GCC development to be able to
provide such concrete examples off the top of my head.  I could think
about something like making it harder to disable the warnings about
such code, for example?