On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 11:14 AM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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. > I am not questioning the potential benefits. I am suggesting that we should talk, as a community, about what we want GCC to be so that we approach these transitions with some consensus on a community strategy and not have members of the community feel that the toolchain is embarking on changes with no strategy or a strategy that has not been publicly expressed. Thanks, David
