On 5/11/23 12:46 AM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > On 5/10/23 11:56 PM, Po Lu wrote: >> And remember that `-traditional' DID exist for a certain amount of time. >> Then it was removed. So in addition to annoying a lot of people, what >> guarantees that -Wno-implicit will not be removed in the future, after >> the proposed changes are made? > > > What guarantees of the future do you have for anything? > > What guarantees do you have that a meteor won't hit Earth and wipe out > all human life in a great catastrophe? > > What guarantees do you have that GCC will still be run by the current > maintainers? > > What guarantees do you have that GCC will still be maintained at all? > > What guarantees do you have that GCC won't decide next year that they > are deleting all support for std > c89, making -traditional the default, > and becoming a historical recreation society? > > What guarantees do you have that GCC won't decide next year that they > are deleting all support for std < c23, mandating that everyone upgrade > to the very latest std that isn't even fully implemented today? > > What guarantees do you have that reality exists as you think of it? > Maybe you are a pink elephant and computers are a figment of your > imagination. > > ... > > I think that what-ifs aren't the most productive use of our time. The > current proposal provides for -std=c89 and similar, so the current > proposal does not cause current GCC users to be unable to use GCC after > the proposed change. > > If a future proposal causes current GCC users to be unable to use GCC > after the future proposal is implemented, then, and only then, should we > worry about whether it will be possible to use GCC. Then, and only then, > will a threat to prevent doing so have actually materialized.
P.S. No, it is not realistic that GCC will remove support for a language feature of c89, until and unless GCC removes support for -std=c89. So I do not know why you are talking about -Wno-implicit. That isn't the question, that's not what's up for debate here. The question is whether GCC will drop support for -std=c89, with all the language functionality that encompasses (including defaulting to not issuing fatal diagnostics when you use it, or indeed issuing diagnostics at all). So please restate your question, as such: > And remember that `-traditional' DID exist for a certain amount of > time. Then it was removed. So in addition to annoying a lot of > people, what guarantees that -std=c89 will not be removed in the > future, after the proposed changes are made? -- Eli Schwartz
