> From: Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com> > Cc: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>, Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org>, > jwakely....@gmail.com, ar...@aarsen.me > Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 22:57:20 +0200 > > * Eli Zaretskii via Gcc: > > >> Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 21:07:07 +0200 > >> From: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> > >> Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com>, ar...@aarsen.me, > >> gcc@gcc.gnu.org > >> > >> On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 10:04:06PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote: > >> > People who ignore warnings will use options that disable these new > >> > errors, exactly as they disable warnings. So we will end up not > >> > >> Some subset of them will surely do that. But I think most people will just > >> fix the code when they see hard errors, rather than trying to work around > >> them. > > > > The same logic should work for warnings. That's why we have warnings, > > no? > > People completely miss the warning and go to great lengths to show that > what they are dealing is a compiler bug. (I tried to elaborate on that > in <87cz394b63....@oldenburg.str.redhat.com>.) If GCC errors out, that > simply does not happen because there is no object code to examine.
And then people will start complaining about GCC unnecessarily erroring out, which is a compiler bug, since there's no problem producing correct code in these cases.
