https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=114526
--- Comment #18 from Harald van Dijk <harald at gigawatt dot nl> --- (In reply to Kaz Kylheku from comment #17) > The standrad does not define the conversion at the *type* level. > ... > The program is strictly conforming because it has no problem with type. The DRs I referenced include ones where type errors have explicitly been stated not to render behaviour undefined. DR 132 (C90): /* No headers included */ int checkup() { /* Case 1 */ if (0) printf("Printing.\n"); /* Case 2 */ return 2 || 1 / 0; } Response: "The Response to Defect Report #109 addresses this issue. The translation unit must be successfully translated." This, despite the fact that it implicitly declares as int(*)(), which is incompatible with the type it is meant to be declared as. The distinction you see between type errors and non-type errors is not one that I believe is supported by previous DR responses. > We wouldn't say that > > void f(void) { "abc" / "def"; } > > is strictly conforming because f is not called in the program. There is a > type problem. Now in this case there is a constraint violation: it requires > a diagnostic. My position is that it is *only* because this violates a constraint that this cannot be part of a strictly conforming program, even if never called, as far as standard C is concerned. That is why implementations are allowed to reject it without program flow analysis. > Anyway, this is all moot because this bugzilla is about GNU C, which has the > extension. The behavior is locally defined. Sure, I'm happy to put that aside if it becomes irrelevant to the bug. > We would like NOT to have a diagnostic under -Wpedantic, so we are on the > same page. > > Whether your program is strictly conforming or not, we would like not to > have it diagnosed under the -Wpedantic umbrella, and even if it is changed > to a program which calls f. > > There is nothing wrong with the diagnostic, but it should be uncoupled from > -Wpedantic and available under its own option. Possibly, an umbrella > option could exist for this kind of "super pedantic" errors, like > -Wconforming-extensions (warn about the use of GNU extensions that are > conforming, and thus require no diagnostic by ISO C). Agreed that having the warning is useful. If 'gcc -std=c99 -pedantic-errors' emits a warning for this, regardless of whether it is enabled by default, that is fine, and that does not prevent it from being a valid implementation of the 'c99' utility.