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.
Jakub
