* Jakub Jelinek: > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 08:13:28PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Andrew Pinski: >> >> > On Fri, Nov 15, 2024 at 9:13 AM Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> This is another recent GCC extension whose use is apparently >> >> difficult to spot in code reviews. >> >> >> >> The name of the option is due to Jonathan Wakely. Part of it >> >> could apply to C++ as well (for labels at the end of a compound >> >> statement). >> > >> > I like this idea of having an option here, though I am not a fan of >> > the name of the option. When I saw `free`, I was not thinking of free >> > flowing or free radicals but rather free as price (beer). >> > I can't think of a good alternative though. >> >> If we don't see C++ support coming, we could use -Wc23-labels. >> Otherwise -Wflexible-labels, -Wunrestricted-labels, -Wenhanced-labels … >> Or separate options: -Wend-labels, -Wdeclaration-labels. But I don't >> think anyone would want to treat those two cases differently. > > So, wouldn't it be better when splitting -Wc11-c23-compat option into pieces > represent those as operands -Wc11-c23-compat=unnamed-parameters,labels,... > where -Wc11-c23-compat would stand for all the subparts?
I've got a patch for -Wdeprecated-non-prototype, which is already part of Clang and warns about C23 incompatibilities related to () in function declarations. That option doesn't fit the -Wc11-c23-compat=… suboptions model. Admitttedly, I don't know how to implement those suboptions anyway. 8-) Thanks, Florian
