More C type errors by default for GCC 14

Sam James
Thu May 11 22:35:20 GMT 2023

Eli Schwartz via Gcc <> writes:

> On 5/11/23 2:12 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>> Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 23:14:20 -0400
>>> From: Eli Schwartz via Gcc <>
>>> Second of all, why is this GCC's problem? You are not a user of GCC,
>>> apparently.
>> He is telling you that removing support for these old features, you
>> draw users away from GCC and towards proprietary compilers.
>> One of the arguments in this thread _for_ dropping that support was
>> that by not rejecting those old programs, GCC draws some users away
>> from GCC.  He is telling you that this change will, perhaps, draw some
>> people to GCC, but will draw others away from GCC.  The difference is
>> that the former group will start using Clang, which is still free
>> software (at least some of its versions), whereas the latter group has
>> nowhere to go but to proprietary compilers.  So the FOSS community
>> will have suffered a net loss.  Something to consider, I think.
> Except this thread is not arguing to remove support for -std=c89 as far
> as I can tell?

And I would not want to see that happen either, nor do I think Florian
would, or many of the other participants in this thread.

Indeed, for some projects, where it's hopeless^Wlots of work,
we're using -std=c89 or -std=gnu89 as appropriate - as already stated.

But most things are easy to fix.

Our interest is purely in making the default stricter for better UX,
reducing the net amount of these bugs in the wild, and avoiding
regressions when we fix these problems. Trying to remove C89 entirely
would, if nothing else, be needlessly antagonistic, but some of the
replies seem to act as if we have.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 377 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <>

More information about the Gcc mailing list