aaron.ballman added a comment. In D156565#4580716 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156565#4580716>, @Endill wrote:
> In D156565#4547909 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156565#4547909>, @aaron.ballman > wrote: > >> In D156565#4543503 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156565#4543503>, >> @aaron.ballman wrote: >> >>> In D156565#4543414 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D156565#4543414>, @jrtc27 >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Given GCC defines GNU C++ and regards this as a feature (unless you use >>>> things like -pedantic to ask for ISO C++), does it make sense to enable >>>> this for GNU C++? >>> >>> I think GCC should enable -Wvla by default in GNU C++ as well, for the same >>> reasons I'm proposing it for Clang. I've filed an issue for it at >>> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=110848 >> >> The GCC conversation is leaning towards only diagnosing by default in C++ >> mode but not in GNU++ mode. I'm still trying to persuade them to diagnose in >> both modes one last time, but if it looks like they're firm about not >> diagnosing in GNU++ mode, I can live with that (for now). It at least >> improves our security posture a bit, so it's definitely a win. > > I think that we should warn by default in GNU mode regardless of GCC > decision. As for the porting concern, I think it falls into "comprehensive > diagnostics" selling point you mentioned earlier, which I totally agree with. The current discussion on the GCC issue is to diagnose by default in C++ mode and add `-Wvla` to `-Wall` in GNU++ mode, which perhaps is a nice compromise. I'm waiting to see if any further discussion happens on that issue, but if folks have opinions on that approach, I'd love to hear them. Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D156565/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D156565 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
