Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

2023-05-16 Thread Jason Merrill via Gcc
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 3:06 AM Florian Weimer via Gcc wrote: > * Eric Gallager via Gcc: > > > I support this plan for using -Werror= and having it be split based on > > whether -std= is set to a strict ANSI option or a GNU option; is there > > a way to do that in the optfiles, or would it have t

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

2023-05-16 Thread Florian Weimer via Gcc
* Jakub Jelinek: > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 01:39:26PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: >> >> 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

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

2023-05-16 Thread Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
On Tue, 16 May 2023 at 12:01, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 01:39:26PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > > > > 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

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

2023-05-16 Thread Jakub Jelinek via Gcc
On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 01:39:26PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: > > 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

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

2023-05-16 Thread Alexander Monakov via Gcc
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

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

2023-05-16 Thread Florian Weimer via Gcc
* 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/sh

Re: More C type errors by default for GCC 14

2023-05-16 Thread Florian Weimer via Gcc
* Eric Gallager via Gcc: > I support this plan for using -Werror= and having it be split based on > whether -std= is set to a strict ANSI option or a GNU option; is there > a way to do that in the optfiles, or would it have to be handled at > the specs level instead? This isn't going to work well