On Tue, May 9, 2023 at 5:46 PM Jonathan Wakely <jwakely....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 9 May 2023 at 23:38, Joel Sherrill wrote: > > We are currently using gcc 12 and specifying C11. To experiment with > > these stricter warnings and slowly address them, would we need to build > > with a newer C version? > > No, the proposed changes are to give errors (instead of warnings) for > rules introduced in C99. GCC is just two decades late in enforcing the > C99 rules properly! > > > > What practices might the GCC community recommend to a project > > wanting to discover the issues uncovered and slowly address them? I > > -Werror=implicit-int > -Werror=implicit-function-declaration > -Werror=int-conversion > Thanks. We already use -Wall which is documented to turn on the top two as warnings at least. Is int-conversion turned on as part of any of the more general -W arguments (e.g. -Wall, -Wextra, -pedantic)? It's not listed in the manual and I was wondering if that was right or an oversight. Given this discussion, I would have expected it to be in -Wall. --joel > > i am a bit gun shy because I remember the move from GCC 3.3 to 3.4 > > where the improved strict alias checking gave us a LOT of warnings to > > deal with and it felt overwhelming. I don't want to do that again. > > > > But I believe in letting the compiler get stricter and find things. > Defaulting > > to stricter checking is a good thing. > > The checks are already done, they're just warnings by default, and so > easily missed/ignored when compiling large code bases. >
