* Michael Matz: > Hello, > > On Fri, 12 May 2023, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> * Alexander Monakov: >> >> > This is not valid (constraint violation): >> > >> > unsigned x; >> > >> > int *p = &x; >> > >> > In GCC this is diagnosed under -Wpointer-sign: >> > >> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25892 >> >> Thanks for the reference. I filed: >> >> -Wpointer-sign must be enabled by default >> <https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109836> > > Can you please not extend the scope of your proposals in this thread but > create a new one?
I understood Joseph as asking for exploring a broadened scope, so I looked into that. > (FWIW: no, this should not be an error, a warning is fine, and I actually > think the current state of it not being in Wall is the right thing as > well) I don't understand why we do not warn by default and warn with -Wall. I would expect this to be either a documented extension (no warning with -Wall), or a warning by default (because it's a conformance issue). Is there any conformance issue that is treated in the same way? Thanks, Florian
