Re: A: a new bug to old plain C
Jonathan Wakely via Gcc-help <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gcc.help |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <CAH6eHdQtq5WJxucEzDtDd7A8f6G41i40yYvaLTd4zKtzzAdNzQ@mail.gmail.com> |
On Thu, 4 Dec 2025, 14:29 Richard Biener, <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2025 at 2:43 PM Александр Поваляев via Gcc > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi David! > > > > I don't think "Fatal error" is an appropriate term for "Foo**" -> "const > > Foo * const * const" conversion. It has been here for decades (30 or 40 > > years) as a warning. > > And some of the compilers don't report it as a warning by default (please > > see the code snippet with the comments I posted to this e-mail thread). > > > > Once again, converting a warning which has been known for 30 years to a > > "Fatal Error" by default is the wrong way. IT BREAKS 30 YEARS BACK > > COMPATIBILITY!!! > > And as somebody wrote here, now it is on the way to become part of C > > standard (and it would be quite logic outcome), but not a "Fatal Error" > as > > you wish. > > > > WHO DISCUSSED THESE CHANGES? > > WHERE THESE CHANGES ARE DOCUMENTED? > > ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SOME REAL THINGS? > > IF YES, COULD YOU PLEASE BE SO KIND TO POST A LINK. GREAT THANK YOU IN > > ADVANCE!!! > > https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-14/porting_to.html I gave him that link a week and a half ago. He's either trolling or just unwilling to listen to the answers he doesn't like. Either way he's a time waster, and filling the mailing list with the same rubbish over and over.