From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.ispras.ru (mail.ispras.ru [83.149.199.84]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9F2E03858439 for ; Tue, 16 May 2023 10:39:29 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 9F2E03858439 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=ispras.ru Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=ispras.ru Received: from [10.10.3.121] (unknown [10.10.3.121]) by mail.ispras.ru (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CB89C40737C3; Tue, 16 May 2023 10:39:26 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mail.ispras.ru CB89C40737C3 Date: Tue, 16 May 2023 13:39:26 +0300 (MSK) From: Alexander Monakov To: Florian Weimer cc: Michael Matz , Gabriel Ravier , Joseph Myers , Eli Zaretskii , Jakub Jelinek , jwakely.gcc@gmail.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, arsen@aarsen.me Subject: Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14 In-Reply-To: <87ilcs64f8.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <87y1lx1avj.fsf@oldenburg.str.redhat.com> <83ednoapb6.fsf@gnu.org> <831qjoa0g0.fsf@gnu.org> <83o7ms8is7.fsf@gnu.org> <2ffbf210-1b58-737b-888c-4f84c5cc5e0f@gmail.com> <837ctg8e98.fsf@gnu.org> <83wn1g6w67.fsf@gnu.org> <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> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,KAM_NUMSUBJECT,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, 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 *'). Alexander