On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 8:05 AM Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org> wrote: > > > From: Neal Gompa <n...@gompa.dev> > > Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 06:56:32 -0400 > > Cc: Eric Gallager <eg...@gwmail.gwu.edu>, Jonathan Wakely > > <jwakely....@gmail.com>, j...@rtems.org, > > David Edelsohn <dje....@gmail.com>, Eli Zaretskii <e...@gnu.org>, > > Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com>, > > Arsen Arsenović <ar...@aarsen.me>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, > > c-std-port...@lists.linux.dev > > > > On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 6:48 AM Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > > > Neal Gompa wasn't keen on the idea at > > > https://lore.kernel.org/c-std-porting/CAEg-Je8=dQo-jAdu=od5dh+h9aqzge_4ghzgx_ow4ryjvpw...@mail.gmail.com/ > > > because it'd feel like essentially "repeated punches". > > > > > > Maybe it'd work with some tweaks: I would, however, be more open to GCC > > > 14 having > > > implicit-function-declaration,implicit-int (these are so closely related > > > that it's not worth dividing the two up) and then say, GCC 15 having > > > int-conversion and maybe > > > incompatible-pointer-types. But spreading it out too much is likely > > > counterproductive. > > > > Right, we've been going through a similar effort with C++ over the > > past decade. GCC incrementally becoming more strict on C++ has been an > > incredibly painful experience, and it eats away a ton of time that I > > would have spent dealing with other problems. Having one big event > > where the majority of changes to make the C compiler strict happen > > will honestly make it less painful, even if it doesn't seem like it at > > the moment. > > But not having such an event, ever, would be even less painful.
That's not going to happen. An event will eventually happen when GCC and Clang switch their default C standard version. And making the compilers stricter is something that has enough benefit to outweigh the pain. The question is "how often" rather than "should we do it". -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
