On 13.02.2020 18:00, Valery Ushakov wrote:
> Arguably, if the tool you use is broken, you shouln't be mutilating
> the source code just to shut that tool up. 

The introduced changes were good, even if GCC would be silent. It is far
from mutilating. As an alternative option we can disable warnings but
this is in my opinion much worse in this case than potentially
overlooking real problems in a 4000+ line file.

On the opposite side of this if this camp is MUSL. I used chunks of the
MUSL code and it had poor results. There is a strict policy to avoid
casts unless absolutely needed and if they are needed this tends to be
in as obscure way as possible (like adding U attribute to one of the
arguments in an expression). This resulted in unmaintainable code and
very difficult situation to guess whether code semantics is broken or
buggy. For purists, MUSL is not mutilated at all so people wanting this
style are informed where to find it now.

Today I prefer explicit casts (after the MUSL lesson) even if
unnecessary than implicit promotion. I'm not alone in here as the
promotion rules are considered by many people as the major flaw in C.

Everybody agrees that GCC was picky in that case and not mandatory from
a strict language point of view.

Repeatedly informing that the tool (GCC) is broken did not solve any
issue. It would be finally better to see someone fixing GCC rather than
informing other GCC users about it.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply via email to