From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ej1-f41.google.com (mail-ej1-f41.google.com [209.85.218.41]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4B2A33858C66 for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 12:11:27 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 4B2A33858C66 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=gompa.dev Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-ej1-f41.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-965e93f915aso1139139466b.2 for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 05:11:27 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1683720685; x=1686312685; h=content-transfer-encoding:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=Y3+SGs+caV9rYJI1KADKzQptmrSu+PqPJcJY5+BZMl4=; b=DZ0ZoWO0nMjMUt0FBdUi6I0dOb8biMfJ+qG0PJ3aDOiOHYhcMCPgGZnrEm+iptBB0h ckxqFP1SWH6CxiPZa+Py/zJyZc1mrJwsgNHdy/1BClWhvmkxxU4hpJsRHv1Ai3oNLKOF YxvzJwyA8Ch9Fdh8aDJqBNgda9Kb2N71NuFqHLvp47+ExTg1nq9fcTlTeJCzzcw7OqTt pRdgbGjJMvY468WfQlXmtZFEblTTtavXnVawyIdAX+cH8uQnGJscLGnJyK4fn7zdSNUH 02lAv1r4xS34D1X6P3IBcqXDphPAK6k6vTT/75MVx4boOwNyuuxKrnQ0Tf8RMM9Tn1YC Bm1w== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDxP8P5E119Gdivm2Kv83i9NOKBw0kLLujtOV2JBh3NRxcjfiMuZ oox2f+nO/K7xZQmM6Ht+6Y3s4jVVJnd1eGo9 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ54vqYibr1PqfGAL2CiPSvWlX8/gv33HR+9vGQV9fqcvCZFPsSXyo0CCEPr+xla5cIYwxdL3A== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:9b94:b0:94f:3f92:c7b0 with SMTP id dd20-20020a1709069b9400b0094f3f92c7b0mr16137518ejc.60.1683720685254; Wed, 10 May 2023 05:11:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ed1-f42.google.com (mail-ed1-f42.google.com. [209.85.208.42]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m17-20020aa7c491000000b005068fe6f3d8sm1774703edq.87.2023.05.10.05.11.24 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 May 2023 05:11:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ed1-f42.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-50bdd7b229cso13152160a12.0 for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 05:11:24 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:1b08:b0:94e:d951:d4e7 with SMTP id mp8-20020a1709071b0800b0094ed951d4e7mr15673513ejc.59.1683720684312; Wed, 10 May 2023 05:11:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 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> <87mt2cihs6.fsf@gentoo.org> <83ttwk8k6q.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <83ttwk8k6q.fsf@gnu.org> From: Neal Gompa Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 08:10:48 -0400 X-Gmail-Original-Message-ID: Message-ID: Subject: Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: sam@gentoo.org, egall@gwmail.gwu.edu, jwakely.gcc@gmail.com, joel@rtems.org, dje.gcc@gmail.com, jakub@redhat.com, arsen@aarsen.me, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, c-std-porting@lists.linux.dev Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,BODY_8BITS,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 8:05=E2=80=AFAM Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > From: Neal Gompa > > Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 06:56:32 -0400 > > Cc: Eric Gallager , Jonathan Wakely , joel@rtems.org, > > David Edelsohn , Eli Zaretskii ,= Jakub Jelinek , > > Arsen Arsenovi=C4=87 , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, > > c-std-porting@lists.linux.dev > > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 6:48=E2=80=AFAM Sam James wrot= e: > > > > > > Neal Gompa wasn't keen on the idea at > > > https://lore.kernel.org/c-std-porting/CAEg-Je8=3DdQo-jAdu=3DOd5DH+h9A= QzGE_4ghzgx_ow4RyJVPwFTg@mail.gmail.com/ > > > because it'd feel like essentially "repeated punches". > > > > > > Maybe it'd work with some tweaks: I would, however, be more open to G= CC 14 having > > > implicit-function-declaration,implicit-int (these are so closely rela= ted > > > that it's not worth dividing the two up) and then say, GCC 15 having = int-conversion and maybe > > > incompatible-pointer-types. But spreading it out too much is likely c= ounterproductive. > > > > Right, we've been going through a similar effort with C++ over the > > past decade. GCC incrementally becoming more strict on C++ has been an > > incredibly painful experience, and it eats away a ton of time that I > > would have spent dealing with other problems. Having one big event > > where the majority of changes to make the C compiler strict happen > > will honestly make it less painful, even if it doesn't seem like it at > > the moment. > > But not having such an event, ever, would be even less painful. That's not going to happen. An event will eventually happen when GCC and Clang switch their default C standard version. And making the compilers stricter is something that has enough benefit to outweigh the pain. The question is "how often" rather than "should we do it". -- =E7=9C=9F=E5=AE=9F=E3=81=AF=E3=81=84=E3=81=A4=E3=82=82=E4=B8=80=E3=81=A4=EF= =BC=81/ Always, there's only one truth!