Dave Blanchard <d...@killthe.net> writes: > On Tue, 9 May 2023 16:14:28 +0100 > Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote: > >> This isn't "be like Clang", this is "diagnose things that have been >> invalid C since 1999". > > And in the process, break half of my system, and make it even more of a pain > in > the ass to compile old software. With no real gain or benefit whatsoever. To > hell with that bullshit.
Your system seems to be already broken.
You're actively dismissing the benefit.
>> 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.
>
> The default ALREADY IS to tell users their code is doing something bad. It's
> called a "warning." Hello?
This construct is a blatant error and is easily fixable. Not to mention
that it has been invalid, just the same as 'if {foo() == 3} ( bar{} );'
is. We're currently not emitting a warning and accepting such code, so
I don't see why this blatantly invalid construct should be taken
differently, especially when it is an exception rather than a rule in
practice.
Have a great day.
--
Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
