* Joseph Myers: >> Other tests look like they might be intended to be built in C89 mode, >> e.g. gcc/testsuite/gcc.c-torture/compile/386.c, although it's not >> immediately obvious to me what they test. > > For tests that might be deliberately testing implicit function > declarations or unprototyped functions, it's probably better to use > explicit options that avoid errors (note that the c-torture tests already > use -w to disable all warnings).
That may incur future maintenance overhead because if it's possible to re-enable implicit declarations in later language modes, we might run into conflicts with future standardization. >> What's the expected default behavior for GCC 14 regarding old-style >> function definitions (function definitions which do not have a >> prototype)? I assume if GCC 14 defaults to C2x mode, these no longer >> valid constructs would be rejected by default? Based on some earlier > > The existing situation is that it's a warning enabled by default in C2x > mode. You could of course argue for an error instead. I plan to make the case for a change to an error in GCC 14, but would argue against doing this in GCC 13 already. I just got my tester going today (I think) and found non-trivial problem in a generic Python distutils check, and what appears to be a systemic issue in the SWIG binding generator. We may have to iterate through one or more (non-GCC) upstream releases to roll out fixes. Thanks, Florian
