More C type errors by default for GCC 14

David Edelsohn dje.gcc@gmail.com
Tue May 9 15:25:14 GMT 2023


On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:14 AM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Tue, 9 May 2023 at 16:04, David Edelsohn via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
> wrote:
> > Yes, GCC has two, distinct user groups / use cases, but GCC also has a
> very
> > unique and crucial role, as the foundation for a large portion of the
> > GNU/Linux and FOSS software ecosystem.  This proposal is missing a
> > motivation for this change, especially making new errors the default.
> >
> > GCC needs to be proactive, not reactive, without annoying and frustrating
> > its user base.  Clang has been making some aggressive changes in
> warnings,
> > but its constituency expects that.  Developers who want that experience
> > already will use Clang, so why annoy developers who prefer the GCC
> > experience and behavior?  The new warnings and errors help some
> developers
> > and improve software security, but also drive some developers away, or at
> > least cause them to reass their choice of toolchain.
> >
> > Maybe we need additional front-end aliases "gcclang" and "gcclang++" for
> > GCC to provide an experience more like Clang for those who desire that.
> > GCC isn't Clang and I fear that GCC is going down a path that annoys and
> > frustrates both user groups -- it's not sufficiently aggressive for those
> > who prefer Clang and it's too aggressive for those who wish backward
> > compatibility.
>
> This isn't "be like Clang", this is "diagnose things that have been
> invalid C since 1999".
>
> Accepting invalid code by default is a disservice to users. Those who
> need to compile invalid C code can use an extra option to allow it,
> the default should be to tell users their code is doing something bad.
>

I am not questioning the potential benefits.

I am suggesting that we should talk, as a community, about what we want GCC
to be so that we approach these transitions with some consensus on a
community strategy and not have members of the community feel that the
toolchain is embarking on changes with no strategy or a strategy that has
not been publicly expressed.

Thanks, David


More information about the Gcc mailing list