* Richard Biener:
> On Wed, May 10, 2023 at 10:05 AM Jonathan Wakely via Gcc
> <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 10 May 2023, 03:32 Eli Zaretskii, <e...@gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > And then people will start complaining about GCC unnecessarily
>> > erroring out, which is a compiler bug, since there's no problem
>> > producing correct code in these cases.
>> >
>>
>>
>> What is the correct code for this?
>>
>> void foo(int);
>> void bar() { foo("42"); }
>>
>> Why should this compile?
>>
>> You keep demanding better rationale for the change, but your argument
>> amounts to nothing more than "it compiles today, it should compile
>> tomorrow".
>
> void foo(__UINTPTR_TYPE__);
> void bar() { foo("42"); }
>
> might be something we'd still like to diagnose but eventually not turn
> into an error? Yes, it then depends on the target whether the code is
> accepted or not, but at least it would continue working where there's
> a "good" answer to your question.
The x86-64 defaults for GNU/Linux were originally set in such a way that
there is a good chance that pointers fit into an int, and broken code
like that happens to work (as long as it's in the main program). Of
course I think we should nevertheless reject it by default.
Anyway, if int-conversion somehow proves more controversial, I believe
disabling implicit-int and implicit-function-declaration by default
would still be a huge step forward.
Thanks,
Florian
