> Date: Thu, 11 May 2023 23:07:55 -0400 > Cc: gcc@gcc.gnu.org > From: Eli Schwartz via Gcc <gcc@gcc.gnu.org> > > > Being sceptical about the future is perfectly reasonable. > > My opinion on this is (still) that if your argument is that you don't > want -fpermissive or -std=c89 to be removed, you are more than welcome > to be skeptical about that (either one or both), but I don't see why > that is on topic for the question of whether things should be moved to > flags such as those while they do exist.
It is on topic because there doesn't seem to be anything in the arguments brought up for this current proposal that couldn't be brought up in favor of removing -fpermissive. There are no guiding principles being uttered which allow the current proposal, but will disallow the removal of -fpermissive. The same "let's be more popular and forthcoming to newbies, and more like Clang" PR-style stuff can justify both. > We might as well assume that the GCC developers are honest and truthful > people, otherwise it is *definitely* a waste of time asking them about > this change in the first place. This is not about honesty. No one is questioning the honesty of GCC developers. What is being questioned are the overriding principles that should be applied when backward-incompatible changes are proposed. Are there such principles in GCC development, and if there are, where are they documented? Or are such discussions just some ad-hoc disputes, and the results are determined by which party is at that time more vocal?
