On Tue, 2006-08-15 at 10:06 -0700, Joe Buck wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:38:38PM -0400, Pavel Roskin wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-08-14 at 22:44 +0200, Andreas Schwab wrote: > > > Try -Werror-implicit-function-declaration. Not the same, but pretty > > > close. > > > > Thanks! I know. In fact, I'm using at least "-Wall -Werror" for my > > code and for the code I'm working with, so it's implied. I'm talking > > about code that I have never seen until the binary did a poo-poo on my > > machine. > > > > Sure, I can petition Fedora, Novell, Debian and others to use > > -Werror-implicit-function-declaration, but I don't think I'll have > > convincing arguments. > > You seem to think that if GCC gets stricter about rejecting bad code, > things will get magically better and software distributions will produce > better code. It tends not to work that way, and the attempt will just > cause the sloppier distros to delay upgrading to new gcc versions.
That's unfortunate. Although it's hard to imagine that is would stop Fedora. > The basic problem is the unfortunate "implicit int" rule from K&R C that > we still haven't killed. And your proposed solution, in my view, is a > hack. You want to detect the one case where a result of an implicit int > function is converted into a pointer, and treat this as a hard error while > still giving only a warning for the conversion of some other int into a > pointer (even though these other conversions may also be 64-bit bugs). The thing is, one can call the function properly, using 0 for integers, 0L for longs and NULL for pointers, and gcc will do the right thing (I think so). In the same time, using the function result "properly", i.e. placing a pointer into a pointer variable, will not work. Anyway, it was just an idea from an outsider, and I'm not going to argue too much about it. -- Regards, Pavel Roskin
