From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from esa3.mentor.iphmx.com (esa3.mentor.iphmx.com [68.232.137.180]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E2B5838F7984 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 20:57:42 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org E2B5838F7984 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=codesourcery.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=mentor.com X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.95,203,1661846400"; d="scan'208";a="85039111" Received: from orw-gwy-02-in.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.167]) by esa3.mentor.iphmx.com with ESMTP; 21 Oct 2022 12:57:20 -0800 IronPort-SDR: n4htFArbL8nujxfZJZfM1CnTwb2JIi6KKLPdWZJkEXSyIIh5lTkjtAuXR743EJc7/7lO2A2w4j CAhwDH/IBgDUkQ/Mzdh5tEugdCdOVRbpQYpgW74getktwFsjLrQd97RXgLZqySYvBD8kQoMn1w gsdet7GmdJuSDpXkjirn3D9tW8Qx0WCz2gRXJdserokMPuedXGk4GjlwMdvBzvJkkIAnYdU5i2 OtJ8wiOUwWdr6b/W3a+fpcvB6hah521vf+Rn248lbTv4+Sm2nL6wapedBT2os17Nm0+XXSpAh3 5Os= Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 20:57:15 +0000 From: Joseph Myers X-X-Sender: jsm28@digraph.polyomino.org.uk To: Florian Weimer CC: Jakub Jelinek , Subject: Re: C89isms in the test suite In-Reply-To: <87o7u5bknf.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <87wn8tbmdr.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <87o7u5bknf.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.22 (DEB 394 2020-01-19) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-Originating-IP: [137.202.0.90] X-ClientProxiedBy: svr-ies-mbx-12.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.12) To svr-ies-mbx-10.mgc.mentorg.com (139.181.222.10) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3110.5 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP 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 Fri, 21 Oct 2022, Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > 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. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com