Sam James via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > Florian Weimer via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > >> My understanding of the consensus goes as follows: >> >> * We want to make some changes in this area for GCC 14. >> * We should do the same thing that Clang does: default to the relevant >> -Werror= options. >> * Unlike regular warnings, these warnings-as-errors should also apply >> to system headers. >> * At least implict-int and implicit-function-declaration should be >> upgraded to errors in this way. >> * It's too early to make the () changes and bool-as-keyword from C2X >> for GCC 14. >> * We should fix the missing scope of the int-conversion warnings >> (PR109827). Likweise for incompatible-pointer-types (PR109826). >> >> Is this summary accurate? >> > > I wasn't there, but this reflects my understanding & what I would've > said if I could've attended. > >> I think the open issues are: >> >> * Do we want to implement something else beside implicit-int and >> implicit-function-declaration? (Candidates are int-conversion and >> incompatible-pointer-types, and the void vs non-void part of >> return-type, maybe others as previously discussed on the list.) > > Ideally, I'd like both int-conversion + incompatible-pointer-types in > this cycle, but if we have to defer one, I'd say to keep int-conversion.
+1, this seems reasonable. I'm not sure I can imagine any even half-legitimate use for falling off the end of functions and similar, so perhaps we should also take return-type? Is that part of C23? > A lot of the low hanging fruit is already fixed there, with the only > big remaining blocker being Vala (which is a > compiler/transpiler). They've indicated they're not that fussed > unless/until GCC changes. > > Putting it another way: I don't think waiting a year or two > would actually help the situation much. Yes, at best it helps with the schedule. >> * How do we divide up the test suite cleanup work? > > Once there's some patches to work with, I'm happy to do a good > chunk (obviously). > > IIRC Jakub and others indicated that the priority is to preserve > the test cases (and hence pass appropriate flags) rather than fix them > up, to avoid inadvertently testing the wrong thing. We could possibly even automate that, by checking what new errors appeared per testcase and inverting them. >> >> Thanks, >> Florian -- Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
