Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Tim Rentsch Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: [RFC] _Optional: a type qualifier to indicate pointer nullability Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2023 21:35:41 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 30 Message-ID: <864jpt631e.fsf@linuxsc.com> References: <86o7qeem30.fsf@linuxsc.com> <86pm8i5otg.fsf@linuxsc.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="77e5ca47682db671e3b280870d0689dc"; logging-data="254700"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18fiHl2BT3D4O8gUbLVjfqcdSBYx9+tCaA=" User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.4 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:Abw1YsbV/sqbUdH/qQdIWHlnfa8= sha1:k4Np+qgE9vvGV51XKImFhfOgjPQ= Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:169849 Po Lu writes: > Tim Rentsch writes: > >> Christopher Bazley writes: >> >>> On Tuesday, 31 January 2023 at 15:54:44 UTC, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> >>>> rejected. Breaking existing code is an absolute deal breaker. But >>>> the other alternative is useless, because there are no >>>> consequences; >>>> any warnings produced can be safely ignored, and that's what people >>>> will do, and compilers will have an option to suppress the >>>> warnings. >>> >>> Nobody ignores warnings at my place of employment because the >>> compiler (either gcc or clang) is invoked with -Werror. I don't >>> think that is particularly unusual either. I've never seen anyone >>> (until you) advocating ignoring warnings, > > And -Werror is part of the Standard? > > GCC and Clang are not all the world, and the semantics they > associate with their diagnostic messages have no place being > specified in a implementation-neutral standard. I don't know why you're responding to my posting. The comment about -Werror is not something I said; it is something Christopher Bazley said, as the quoted material indicates.