Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com> writes:
> * Sam James: > >> Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com> writes: >> >>> Most -Wimplicit-int warnings were unconditionally disabled for system >>> headers. Only missing types for parameters in old-style function >>> definitions resulted in warnings. This is inconsistent with the >>> treatment of other permerrors, which are active in system headers. >> >> The situation with system headers is kind of a mess still. I went >> looking for a bug for the -Wimplicit-int behaviour but I only found >> PR78000 for -Wimplicit-function-declaration. But in the bug, Joseph >> makes the same observation. >> >> I don't suppose he'll want to block on that at this late point though. >> >> Do you know offhand what Clang's behaviour is wrt warnings in system >> headers? > > Clang ignores these new errors in system headers by default. I don't > know if that's deliberate or a bug. Our permerrors are deliberately > active in system headers. As the test shows, -Wimplicit-int really was > the outlier here because of that check outside the permerror machinery. Thanks - my assumption was that it was more widespread because of a few lingering bugs I've seen a few projects complain about, but maybe they were using old versions or similar. > > I expect system headers are quite clean actually because they have to be > for C++ compatibility. Some things have improved in the last 25 years. > Oh, duh. Thank you!
