> Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 21:07:07 +0200 > From: Jakub Jelinek <ja...@redhat.com> > Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com>, ar...@aarsen.me, gcc@gcc.gnu.org > > On Tue, May 09, 2023 at 10:04:06PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii via Gcc wrote: > > > 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 > > Some subset of them will surely do that. But I think most people will just > fix the code when they see hard errors, rather than trying to work around > them.
The same logic should work for warnings. That's why we have warnings, no?
