On Wed, 4 Dec 2019, Jeff Law wrote: > > So what normally happens with the numerous new warnings/errors in GCC > > releases? I suppose that could cause package failures too. Would it be > > feasible > > to override the options for any failing packages? > Usually we're talking about a few dozen packages that are tripped by any > particular issue. The -fno-common issue is a full order of magnitude > larger. My builds show ~450 failures due to this issue.
I'll note here as an advance warning that WG14 has indicated support for making bool, true and false into keywords for C2x, which seems likely to be the sort of change that would cause large numbers of build failures in pre-C99 code that does "typedef char bool;" and similar. Assuming it does get into C2x, it might make sense, once implemented in GCC, to try such distribution builds with a local patch to change the default C language to -std=gnu2x, to see the extent of the build failures and possibly get them addressed well before the actual GCC default does change to gnu2x. (The proposal also makes alignas, alignof, static_assert and thread_local into keywords, but I'd expect those to cause much smaller numbers of build failures than bool, true and false.) -- Joseph S. Myers jos...@codesourcery.com
