> From: Sam James <s...@gentoo.org> > Cc: Arsen Arsenović <ar...@aarsen.me>, d...@killthe.net, > jwakely....@gmail.com, gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 18:05:09 +0100 > > Eli Zaretskii via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes: > > >> Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org > >> Date: Tue, 09 May 2023 18:38:05 +0200 > >> From: Arsen Arsenović via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > >> > >> You're actively dismissing the benefit. > > > > Which benefit? > > > > No one has yet explained why a warning about this is not enough, and > > why it must be made an error. Florian's initial post doesn't explain > > that, and none of the followups did, although questions about whether > > a warning is not already sufficient were asked. > > > > That's a simple question, and unless answered with valid arguments, > > the proposal cannot make sense to me, at least. > > My email covers this: > https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2023-May/241269.html.
If it does, I missed it, even upon second reading now. Again, the question is: why warning is not enough? > I'd also note that some of the issues I've seen were already flagged > in people's CI but they didn't notice because it was just a warning. The CI can run with non-default flags, if they don't pay attention to warnings. If that's the only reason, then I'm sorry, it is not strong enough.
