Eli Schwartz <eschwart...@gmail.com> writes: > 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).
Because in the real world, almost nobody writes strictly conforming ANSI C. Some people do want to mix declarations with statements. Some people do want non-local goto, typeof, zero length arrays, arithmetic on void pointers, asm volatile, and so on. And at the same time, they also want to be able to use features such as various declarations with only a storage class specifier. All of which are presently implemented by GCC.
