More C type errors by default for GCC 14

Po Lu
Thu May 11 02:18:02 GMT 2023

Sam James <> writes:

> No, we're talking about "things which ISO C made invalid in 1999, but
> GCC kept supporting for a while". We're discussing terminating that
> support. The "standard" part here is not about deference to the standard
> and claiming extensions can never be made, but rather that we're keeping
> something which was explicitly removed.

Which is still an extension to the Standard, and a perfectly conforming
one at that.

The same could not be said about the lack of trigraphs, and keywords
such as `asm'.

> These aren't things which were in the standard and then got removed
> because of how terrible they are. They're things that are considered
> a part of GNU C as proper GNU extensions.

Once the Standard removed those features, the implementations in GNU C
became GNU extensions.  No amount of wordplay is going to change that.

In C99 and later dialects of C, GCC even issues a diagnostic upon
encountering implicit function declarations or implicit int, thereby
satisfying that requirement of the Standard.

> Note that, per the rest of the thread, the constructs we're discussing
> here to be banned are not considered "proper GNU extensions".

Really?  It is an implementation extension, the implementation being GNU
C.  It also seems rather arrogant to assume that you have the privilege
to ban others from writing code in a certain way.

More information about the Gcc mailing list