From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 003C039EBBF8 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 21:46:55 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 003C039EBBF8 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1666388796; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=YZEbJux4X5udRID1w83NWH7VkSZTg6nPjurEptPYcuY=; b=HPjguti6df7KyO3Kmzwl0pdilpyoZV27uJ+VATuJUjZY+f6BSrVY3aeIoIhc19/bOS+FGO NVeSV0bJI4lLdoJR/YRrjtbl3IYTG3gdZKedsPthwNKccZTuUxEUgaWBo6WskF08Hf4dc/ rQ3ISUvjmCmU9NT592i9uezLBs1RHNs= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-407-KiSrPEuDPhyaLyiOMuPacw-1; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 17:46:25 -0400 X-MC-Unique: KiSrPEuDPhyaLyiOMuPacw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A3A4E82DFDB; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 21:46:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from oldenburg.str.redhat.com (unknown [10.2.16.74]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D2B1710197; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 21:46:23 +0000 (UTC) From: Florian Weimer To: Joseph Myers Cc: Subject: Re: C89isms in the test suite References: <87wn8tbmdr.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 23:46:22 +0200 In-Reply-To: (Joseph Myers's message of "Fri, 21 Oct 2022 20:54:30 +0000") Message-ID: <87edv07sup.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.5 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP 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: * Joseph Myers: >> Other tests look like they might be intended to be built in C89 mode, >> e.g. gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/386.c, although it's not >> immediately obvious to me what they test. > > For tests that might be deliberately testing implicit function > declarations or unprototyped functions, it's probably better to use > explicit options that avoid errors (note that the c-torture tests already > use -w to disable all warnings). That may incur future maintenance overhead because if it's possible to re-enable implicit declarations in later language modes, we might run into conflicts with future standardization. >> What's the expected default behavior for GCC 14 regarding old-style >> function definitions (function definitions which do not have a >> prototype)? I assume if GCC 14 defaults to C2x mode, these no longer >> valid constructs would be rejected by default? Based on some earlier > > The existing situation is that it's a warning enabled by default in C2x > mode. You could of course argue for an error instead. I plan to make the case for a change to an error in GCC 14, but would argue against doing this in GCC 13 already. I just got my tester going today (I think) and found non-trivial problem in a generic Python distutils check, and what appears to be a systemic issue in the SWIG binding generator. We may have to iterate through one or more (non-GCC) upstream releases to roll out fixes. Thanks, Florian