On Wed, 10 May 2023 at 11:40, Eric Gallager <eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu> wrote: > > On 5/9/23, Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 9 May 2023 at 23:38, Joel Sherrill wrote: > >> We are currently using gcc 12 and specifying C11. To experiment with > >> these stricter warnings and slowly address them, would we need to build > >> with a newer C version? > > > > No, the proposed changes are to give errors (instead of warnings) for > > rules introduced in C99. GCC is just two decades late in enforcing the > > C99 rules properly! > > > > > >> What practices might the GCC community recommend to a project > >> wanting to discover the issues uncovered and slowly address them? I > > > > -Werror=implicit-int > > -Werror=implicit-function-declaration > > -Werror=int-conversion > > > > Idea for a compromise: What if, instead of flipping the switch on all > 3 of these at once, we staggered them so that each one becomes a > default in a separate release? i.e., something like: > > - GCC 14: -Werror=implicit-function-declaration gets added to the defaults > - GCC 15: -Werror=implicit-int gets added to the defaults > - GCC 16: -Werror=int-conversion gets added to the defaults > > That would give people more time to catch up on a particular warning, > rather than overwhelming them with a whole bunch all at once. Just an > idea.
On the Suse list there was a strong objection to doing that, because it just prolongs the pain. It means maintainers spend the next three years dealing with it, fixing the same packages again and again, instead of just getting it done.
