On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 09:15:12AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Segher Boessenkool: > > > Hi Florian, > > > > On Fri, Jul 05, 2019 at 07:49:21AM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> > We already have an option for that > >> > (-Werror=implicit-function-declaration), > >> > and it is an error by default with -pedantic-errors already. If you are > >> > asking to make it an error by default, I second that; there needs to be a > >> > wat to turn it off though. Maybe it should be an error for c99 and later > >> > only, anyway? > >> > >> Yes, it should be an error by default, without any flags. Which is > >> gnu11 mode by now, I think. So it's not sufficient to do this for > >> c99/c11 mode. > > > > When I say "c99 and later", of course that includes gnu99 and gnu11. My > > point is that we probably shouldn't by default error on this in c90 mode, > > since it is a valid construct there, and not extraordinarily harmful. > > Ah, sorry. Yes, this isn't for c90 mode. I'm less concerned with > programmers who set -std=, they can use > -Werror=implicit-function-declaration as well if they want. It is > really the flag-less default that matters to me.
Yup. > What I meant is that this works just fine on 32-bit architectures > because there is no truncation involved. You mean "it most likely does what the author intended". Ah. > >> >> Implicit int we should remove as well. Checking configure scripts for > >> >> both issues at the same time would not be much more work. > >> > > >> > We could enable -Wimplicit-int by default for c99 and later, maybe even > >> > its -Werror- version. This conflicts with at least -fms-extensions it, > >> > seems, dunno what to do there. > >> > >> We can keep this a separate discussion if it helps. > > > > Yes please. Can you make separate PRs? There is essentially no > > overlap. > > I filed PR91092 and PR91093. Thanks! Segher
