https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71885
--- Comment #18 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Kern Sibbald from comment #17) > The g++ developers could have realized that in especially in "undefined" > territory where they knew they would break code the conservative way to do > it without creating chaos is to add new strict warning message for a period > of time (one to two years) prior to making their changes default. If someone developed the warning, it could stay forever. The problem is that someone needs to develop the warning. People working on GCC right now (including myself) are either not paid to do this or not personally interested in such a warning enough to dedicate their free time. People interested in diagnostics (or a boringcc that never takes advantage of undefined behavior[*]) rather than in optimization should either join GCC or encourage others to join GCC development to the point that they can influence its development in the future. [*] https://lwn.net/Articles/669004/
