On Wed, 16 Oct 2024, Eric Gallager via Gcc wrote: > One thing about -Wtraditional is that it enables a lot of different > messages, so I always thought it would make more sense as an umbrella > warning that just enables a bunch of sub-warning flags. While many of > the individual sub-warnings may no longer be relevant, some of them > might still be useful for reasons besides compatibility with > traditional C.
A few are also controlled by other options (I'm not proposing doing anything with -Wtraditional-conversion or -Wlong-long, for example). I don't think any of the others are likely to be of use. "non-static declaration of %q+D follows static declaration" "traditional C lacks a separate namespace for labels, identifier %qE conflicts" "traditional C rejects ISO C style function definitions" "traditional C rejects string constant concatenation" "traditional C rejects the unary plus operator" "traditional C rejects automatic aggregate initialization" "traditional C rejects initialization of unions" "%<long%> switch expression not converted to %<int%> in ISO C" "the meaning of %<\\%c%> is different in traditional C" "the meaning of %<\\x%> is different in traditional C" "the meaning of %<\\a%> is different in traditional C" "suggest not using %<#elif%> in traditional C" "traditional C ignores %<#%s%> with the %<#%> indented" "suggest hiding %<#%s%> from traditional C with an indented %<#%>" "traditional C rejects the %<%.*s%> suffix" "function-like macro %qs must be used with arguments in traditional C" "macro argument %qs would be stringified in traditional C" If someone thinks one of these is desirable as a coding style warning without regard for traditional C, please explain why. Or if you do have code you'd like to build with both GCC 15 or later, and a pre-C89 compiler, please give details. Such details are much more relevant than pure speculation that maybe something could be of use to someone. -- Joseph S. Myers josmy...@redhat.com
