Is the reasoning that since it’s not a standard feature, a pedantic warning doesn’t make sense? And it’s still a warning with -Wpointer-arith.
If so, yes, it makes sense to me too. Best, Yeoul > On Oct 28, 2025, at 7:02 PM, Kees Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On October 28, 2025 2:11:55 PM PDT, Qing Zhao <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >>> On Oct 28, 2025, at 16:45, Joseph Myers <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, 28 Oct 2025, Qing Zhao wrote: >>> >>>>> counted_by itself is an extension, so I don't think it makes any sense >>>>> for >>>>> flag_iso to affect what cases are accepted, or to produce pedwarns for >>>>> certain cases. Rather, just do a warning, not a pedwarn, with >>>>> OPT_Wpointer_arith (since it does make sense for -Wpointer-arith to >>>>> affect >>>>> whether this is diagnosed, just not for it to be an error or pedwarn). >>>> >>>> Yeah, I think you are correct. The “counted_by” attribute is an GNU >>>> extension itself already. >>>> >>>> So, you are suggesting to support “counted_by” for VOID pointer by >>>> default, but >>>> Issue warnings when -Wpointer-arith is presenting? >>> >>> Yes, exactly. >> >> Okay. thanks. I think this is reasonable. >> >> Kees and Yeoul, is such behavior fine with you? > > I'm fine with this, yes, thanks! > > -Kees > > -- > Kees Cook
