Po Lu via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
> Jonathan Wakely via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>
>> 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?
>
> Because keeping that from compiling will also keep this from compiling:
>
> bar ()
> {
> extern foo ();
>
> return foo ("42");
> }
Good. The above code is nonsense, the chances that foo will be
incorrectly called are high.
>> You keep demanding better rationale for the change, but your argument
>> amounts to nothing more than "it compiles today, it should compile
>> tomorrow".
>
> And so it should. Because for every invalid piece of code you can think
> of, there are hundereds or thousands of combinations that may as well be
> valid. For example, on the 68020, vax, or similarly reasonable 32-bit
> machine:
>
> foo (ptr)
> {
> register char *str;
>
> str = ptr;
>
> /* do stuff with str */
>
> puts (str);
> }
>
> /* In another translation unit. */
>
> bar ()
> {
> foo ("42");
> }
What is this meant to produce?
This is, at best, a "works by coincidence", rather than being code
anyone should be writing.
Such code is already written, when building it, pass -fpermissive.
You benefit from the error otherwise.
(and no, this isn't an issue of style, the code in question *does not*
convey sufficient information for the compiler to always do the right
thing)
Have a lovely day.
--
Arsen Arsenović
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
