> From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> > Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 18:15:59 +0100 > Cc: Arsen Arsenović <ar...@aarsen.me>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org > > On Tue, 9 May 2023 at 17:56, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > 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. > > People ignore warnings. That's why the problems have gone unfixed for > so many years, and will continue to go unfixed if invalid code keeps > compiling.
People who ignore warnings will use options that disable these new errors, exactly as they disable warnings. So we will end up not reaching the goal, but instead harming those who are well aware of the warnings. IOW, if we are targeting people for whom warnings are not enough, then we have already lost the battle. Discipline cannot be forced by technological means, because people will always work around.
