On Fri, Oct 21, 2022 at 11:17:40AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> So we would patch the tests?
Depends on how large the patch is, but I'd say so.
> I guess we can make sure we use “int main
> (void)” etc. at the same time.
Why? Isn't int main () {} in C2X the same thing as int main (void) {} ?
int main () {...} is in 3500+ C tests and every day a few are added...
> One thing we haven't discussed much so far is PR106416 (-Wint-conversion
> should be an error, not a pedwarn). I think I found the place in the
> GCC sources to patch to turn this into an error, but I haven't tried it
> yet to see what happens. I assume the rule is the same for the other
> historic stuff (accepted in C89 mode with a warning, error in C99 or
> later language modes).
Or no warning in C89 mode and just error in C99+?
I think you want Joseph to chime in and decide.
Jakub
