On Tue, 16 May 2023, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > (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) (this is mixed up, -Wpointer-sign is in fact enabled by -Wall) > 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? Another one is -Wpointer-arith (pointer arithmetic on 'void *'). Alexander
