From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-ej1-x633.google.com (mail-ej1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::633]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D07693858439 for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 11:10:11 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org D07693858439 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=gmail.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=gmail.com Received: by mail-ej1-x633.google.com with SMTP id a640c23a62f3a-9659e9bbff5so2588638266b.1 for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 04:10:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1684235410; x=1686827410; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=R8e2frGEC9sgIeNwczYnCxb54gVhnkBrVhs0Q2oYy7k=; b=Kg6BoMY2d5RrC3e67HKn8gR1sI6yAxtbIeTQYV3pcZzmmS/CaUASsbrUFZT4Z5i+gg ImYEDRnqinq+yHp/s+imbtenH9hV8xPqJMJ8+q3g+jh7xQMXhMvYmuTZyfREdroS0qUn FzlMHderFqfByID9atEbENIlBCWPSibfUp8GHqmIyp8n8WsOItSzFEk5w5s9lvDIaQXn ORWqo7XeWfYZTvb9TtWLuYw4Qy6+zTBXBlsHpgBbi3SYOCJJPwmlTHArtYnxi782Y13o Ti4PRdv6QL/wPpyNuMGqe4WxqM4dM2WFyyxqr6Nuy/02i+Uy8TU1ceQcbRLAlpDxBDrz zWjw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1684235410; x=1686827410; h=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=R8e2frGEC9sgIeNwczYnCxb54gVhnkBrVhs0Q2oYy7k=; b=Jjyvc4ZTkcduG+hrxCzSZGuGuE9vLLcw2wQ1Mpqgxw8V4riyaJrD/Z2Ko7Get5QsU8 XKK5orby+fXHTz1iEIYvoFV7P54MXkwKqXshiaORQdUKLUH1RJsQFB8eE+YxQJSpQRwW 1xB0sW0H268ZiU55u2nQ8Df7H2qVEWGREeAaX8tykJcosF5Lvlx++51MJ+4kBCzfSnij ymOb15RN7DI6TNR5WLUNnvqtnLybrMIEPxBx46G3wzT35Wd+7joWNKI0BOWKJcYtlKKf OXtMJWMQASo//De9DqAql5HDjM8sZh7T035J2mXPgPzslzhyA0rb/IgNA0uPsgx5O+4+ A5uA== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDwOIkIEX68fg9cjxuUdb+f5a54JU4sVwcCu3mBAnRNmAy21+Op2 QywSobXGbtyR9WhjPe60D9Rkx1mre+1iXwsxqLM= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4x7y4NbWySZ8Q7sVaIW0w5nisaLy+RDYPEoSiACQQCbcMmzA/kXkXGPWJa+GJpZff3zIHEPxFQFeXgGWyI0Vs= X-Received: by 2002:a17:907:9616:b0:94f:1a23:2f1b with SMTP id gb22-20020a170907961600b0094f1a232f1bmr34894547ejc.24.1684235409765; Tue, 16 May 2023 04:10:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <83mt2c6tch.fsf@gnu.org> <871qjlh9t3.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <87jzxdfne0.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <3d157d9c-0504-b8b4-46f6-54ea90374765@gmail.com> <4989d9fb-366a-4103-aedc-ce725ef131a8@ispras.ru> <878rdtfmdw.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> <87ilcs64f8.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: From: Jonathan Wakely Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 12:09:58 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14 To: Jakub Jelinek Cc: Alexander Monakov , Florian Weimer , Michael Matz , Gabriel Ravier , Joseph Myers , Eli Zaretskii , gcc@gcc.gnu.org, arsen@aarsen.me Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,FREEMAIL_FROM,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,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 Tue, 16 May 2023 at 12:01, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 01:39:26PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > > > > On Tue, 16 May 2023, Florian Weimer wrote: > > > > > > (FWIW: no, this should not be an error, a warning is fine, and I actually > > > > think the current state of it not being in Wall is the right thing as > > > > well) > > > > (this is mixed up, -Wpointer-sign is in fact enabled by -Wall) > > > > > I don't understand why we do not warn by default and warn with -Wall. I > > > would expect this to be either a documented extension (no warning with > > > -Wall), or a warning by default (because it's a conformance issue). Is > > > there any conformance issue that is treated in the same way? > > > > Another one is -Wpointer-arith (pointer arithmetic on 'void *'). > > That is a documented GNU extension, so we shouldn't increase severity of > the diagnostics from the current state. I was about to say that this one really is a documented extension. It's caused a few bugs in libstdc++ over the years though. Arithmetic on void* makes sense, but pointer arithmetic on function pointers is just weird.