Re: RFC: More C errors by default in GCC 14 (no more implicit function declarations etc.)

["Arsen Arsenović" <arsen@aarsen.me>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1501 bytes --]


Paul Wise <pabs@debian.org> writes:

> On Tue, 2023-04-18 at 16:07 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> TL;DR: I want to propose a GCC 14 change which will impact
>> distributions, so I'd like to gather some feedback from Debian.
>
> Is this change being made the upstream defaults?
>
> Or will it be a distro override like the hardening flags are?

The intention is to make this a default, in order to brace people for a
future C default standard version changes.

>> I would appreciate some discussion on the Debian impact.
>
> Since most of the Debian archive can be reproducibly built, it seems
> like the way to gauge the impact of this change on Debian would be to
> do two archive rebuilds, once without the flags and once with the
> flags, then compare the two builds for each package using diffoscope.

This seems reasonable.  I suspect changes largely in configure scripts
based on our prior experience[1].

Have a lovely night.

> The reproducible builds fuzzing tests get 96.2% reproducible,
> this would only go up when not varying most of the fuzzed things.
>
> https://tests.reproducible-builds.org/debian/reproducible.html
>
> The existing documentation for Debian archive rebuilds is outdated and
> deleted, but Lucas Nusbaum and others have been doing them for a while.
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/MassRebuilds
> https://wiki.debian.org/qa.debian.org/ArchiveTesting?action=recall&rev=23

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/870412
-- 
Arsen Arsenović

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 381 bytes --]