* Jakub Jelinek: > On Tue, May 16, 2023 at 01:39:26PM +0300, Alexander Monakov wrote: >> >> On Tue, 16 May 2023, Florian Weimer wrote: >> >> > > (FWIW: no, this should not be an error, a warning is fine, and I >> > > actually >> > > think the current state of it not being in Wall is the right thing as >> > > well) >> >> (this is mixed up, -Wpointer-sign is in fact enabled by -Wall) >> >> > I don't understand why we do not warn by default and warn with -Wall. I >> > would expect this to be either a documented extension (no warning with >> > -Wall), or a warning by default (because it's a conformance issue). Is >> > there any conformance issue that is treated in the same way? >> >> Another one is -Wpointer-arith (pointer arithmetic on 'void *'). > > That is a documented GNU extension, so we shouldn't increase severity of > the diagnostics from the current state.
Right, it's also widely used, and harmless for void *. For function pointers, it's much more dubious, and not meaningful at all for some targets. Thanks, Florian