This is the mail archive of the
gcc@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: Implicit built-in function declarations
On Mon, 1 Aug 2004, Geoffrey Keating wrote:
> about such things. (I'm even leaning towards the idea that -Wimplicit
> should be on by default.)
I tend to agree with that (and maybe also for some other warnings that are
or should be in -Wall and that would commonly help to avoid bogus bug
reports). Presuming of course the command-line option to disable it is
still available. (There is some inconsistency in the warnings that are on
by default in C99 mode about whether they can then be (nonconformingly)
disabled in that mode.)
In principle, the ideal has been that these warnings would eventually end
up on by default as a side-effect of gnu99 mode becoming the default; and
while in principle it would still be my intent that gnu99 mode ends up the
default, I see no particular harm (and some good) in some such warnings
(e.g. the one for implicit function declarations) going on by default
anyway. There will inevitably be testsuite fallout - more with them going
on by default anyway than as a side-effect of gnu99 mode becoming the
default because the latter doesn't affect the gcc.dg tests using the
default -ansi -pedantic-errors options.
--
Joseph S. Myers http://www.srcf.ucam.org/~jsm28/gcc/
jsm@polyomino.org.uk (personal mail)
jsm28@gcc.gnu.org (Bugzilla assignments and CCs)