On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 10:04:06PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote:
> > From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com>
> > Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 18:15:59 +0100
> > Cc: Arsen Arsenović <ar...@aarsen.me>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
> >
> > On Tue, 9 May 2023 at 17:56, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > >
> > > No one has yet explained why a warning about this is not enough, and
> > > why it must be made an error. Florian's initial post doesn't explain
> > > that, and none of the followups did, although questions about whether
> > > a warning is not already sufficient were asked.
> > >
> > > That's a simple question, and unless answered with valid arguments,
> > > the proposal cannot make sense to me, at least.
> >
> > People ignore warnings. That's why the problems have gone unfixed for
> > so many years, and will continue to go unfixed if invalid code keeps
> > compiling.
>
> People who ignore warnings will use options that disable these new
> errors, exactly as they disable warnings. So we will end up not
Some subset of them will surely do that. But I think most people will just
fix the code when they see hard errors, rather than trying to work around
them.
Jakub
