This is the mail archive of the gcc@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Why is this diagnostic only reported with -pedantic?

From: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
To: "Giovanni Bajo" <giovannibajo at libero dot it>
Cc: <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>, "Tom Schutter" <tom at platte dot com>
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2005 19:55:20 -0500
Subject: Re: Why is this diagnostic only reported with -pedantic?
References: <1107990381.29923.6.camel@rota.bou.platte.com> <038401c50f0a$950ca290$d64e2a97@bagio>

The code in baz() is perfectly legal since ISO C++ allows void returns. -pedantic should not warn about it because it is not a GCC extension at all. Would you please file a bugreport about the incorrect warning emitted for baz()?

Actually don't because the orginal code was run over the C front-end where this is a GCC extension. The C++ front-end does the correct thing in that it does not warn/error out about the return value at all.

-- Pinski

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Why is this diagnostic only reported with -pedantic?
  - From: Tom Schutter

References:
- Why is this diagnostic only reported with -pedantic?
  - From: Tom Schutter
- Re: Why is this diagnostic only reported with -pedantic?
  - From: Giovanni Bajo

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]