Dave Blanchard <dave@killthe.net> writes:

> On Tue, 9 May 2023 16:14:28 +0100
> Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
>> This isn't "be like Clang", this is "diagnose things that have been
>> invalid C since 1999".
>
> And in the process, break half of my system, and make it even more of a pain in
> the ass to compile old software. With no real gain or benefit whatsoever. To
> hell with that bullshit.

Your system seems to be already broken.

You're actively dismissing the benefit.

>> Accepting invalid code by default is a disservice to users. Those who
>> need to compile invalid C code can use an extra option to allow it,
>> the default should be to tell users their code is doing something bad.
>
> The default ALREADY IS to tell users their code is doing something bad. It's
> called a "warning." Hello?

This construct is a blatant error and is easily fixable.  Not to mention
that it has been invalid, just the same as 'if {foo() == 3} ( bar{} );'
is.  We're currently not emitting a warning and accepting such code, so
I don't see why this blatantly invalid construct should be taken
differently, especially when it is an exception rather than a rule in
practice.

Have a great day.
-- 
Arsen Arsenović