More C type errors by default for GCC 14
Thu May 11 02:14:59 GMT 2023
Po Lu via Gcc <email@example.com> writes:
> firstname.lastname@example.org (Jonathan Wakely) writes:
>> So let's do it. Let's write a statement saying that the GCC developers
>> consider software security to be of increasing importance, and that we
>> consider it irresponsible to default to accepting invalid constructs in the
>> name of backwards compatibility. State that we will make some changes which
>> were a break from GCC's traditional stance, for the good of the ecosystem.
> I'm sorry you think that way.
>> Given recent pushes to discourage or outright ban the use of memory-safe
>> languages in some domains, I think it would be good to make a strong
>> statement about taking the topic seriously. And not just make a statement,
>> but take action too.
>> If we don't do this, I believe it will harm GCC in the long run. The vocal
>> minority who want to preserve the C they're used to, like some kind of
>> historical reenactment society, would get their wish: it would become a
>> historical dead end and go nowhere.
> Vocal minority? Do you have any evidence to back this claim?
> What I see is that some reasonable organizations have already chosen
> other C compilers which are capable of supporting their existing large
> bodies of C code that have seen significant investment over many years,
> while others have chosen to revise their C code with each major change
> to the language.
> The organizations which did not wish to change their code did not
> vocally demand changes to GCC after GCC became unsuitable, but quietly
> arranged to license other compilers.
> Those that continue write traditional C code know what they are doing,
> and the limitations of traditional C do not affect the quality of their
> code. For example, on the Unix systems at my organization, the SGS is
> modified so that it will not link functions called through a declaration
> with no parameter specification with a different set of parameters than
> it was defined with.
I think the group of people dedicated enough to patch their linker would
be able to pass a flag to the compiler to allow old constructs.
More information about the Gcc