On Tue, 9 May 2023 at 16:04, David Edelsohn via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > Yes, GCC has two, distinct user groups / use cases, but GCC also has a very > unique and crucial role, as the foundation for a large portion of the > GNU/Linux and FOSS software ecosystem. This proposal is missing a > motivation for this change, especially making new errors the default. > > GCC needs to be proactive, not reactive, without annoying and frustrating > its user base. Clang has been making some aggressive changes in warnings, > but its constituency expects that. Developers who want that experience > already will use Clang, so why annoy developers who prefer the GCC > experience and behavior? The new warnings and errors help some developers > and improve software security, but also drive some developers away, or at > least cause them to reass their choice of toolchain. > > Maybe we need additional front-end aliases "gcclang" and "gcclang++" for > GCC to provide an experience more like Clang for those who desire that. > GCC isn't Clang and I fear that GCC is going down a path that annoys and > frustrates both user groups -- it's not sufficiently aggressive for those > who prefer Clang and it's too aggressive for those who wish backward > compatibility.
This isn't "be like Clang", this is "diagnose things that have been invalid C since 1999". Accepting invalid code by default is a disservice to users. Those who need to compile invalid C code can use an extra option to allow it, the default should be to tell users their code is doing something bad.
