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 139E73853837 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:36:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org 139E73853837 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=1666344990; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=k3IaQ+8IMS4qWPKBO7SfMFCZhNTvJ1M0uE0GK9Yz3wE=; b=YkzT6we3aJ6psQVpRaQ8x8i7RyT8L6ByixVfvPK+hDKdblVnC9eaHal91FZza9dh0mUikW EEq930r62mWQVuFJcpcIeK+z+kwPC39PxP6DwIbrZxKx3BODV07OEpu9EFYhD2RnGOZOVX 6kIj4b4HQt6jxnW+OKSkYzqwipUzne8= 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-245-C0saOy6qPj2NjBXJL4pC7Q-1; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 05:36:29 -0400 X-MC-Unique: C0saOy6qPj2NjBXJL4pC7Q-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 126D785A583 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:36:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (unknown [10.39.193.252]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C81781121315; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:36:28 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 29L9aQKe3492201 (version=TLSv1.3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:36:26 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.17.1/8.17.1/Submit) id 29L9aQ393492200; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:36:26 +0200 Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 11:36:25 +0200 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Florian Weimer Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: C89isms in the test suite Message-ID: Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <87wn8tbmdr.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <87o7u5bknf.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87o7u5bknf.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.1 on 10.11.54.3 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.7 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: On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:17:40AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > So we would patch the tests? Depends on how large the patch is, but I'd say so. > I guess we can make sure we use “int main > (void)” etc. at the same time. Why? Isn't int main () {} in C2X the same thing as int main (void) {} ? int main () {...} is in 3500+ C tests and every day a few are added... > One thing we haven't discussed much so far is PR106416 (-Wint-conversion > should be an error, not a pedwarn). I think I found the place in the > GCC sources to patch to turn this into an error, but I haven't tried it > yet to see what happens. I assume the rule is the same for the other > historic stuff (accepted in C89 mode with a warning, error in C99 or > later language modes). Or no warning in C89 mode and just error in C99+? I think you want Joseph to chime in and decide. Jakub