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?


Tom Schutter <tom@platte.com> writes:

> The programmer assumes that a value is being returned by foo(), because
> of the return(1).  The programmer also assumes that a value is being
> returned by baz(), because of the return(bar()).

But the value returned is void, and C++ show that this is a quite natural
extension.  (The reason why this is allowed in C++ is of course not
applicable to C.)

> It's not that something can go wrong, its just the program is not doing
> what the programmer expects.

It's returning the value of the expression.  I don't see any contradiction
between the expectation and the behaviour.

> Nothing goes wrong when there is unreachable code, but gcc still emits a
> warning when it detects unreachable code.

If you have unreachable code then very much can go wrong.

Andreas.

-- 
Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, schwab@suse.de
SuSE Linux Products GmbH, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
Key fingerprint = 58CA 54C7 6D53 942B 1756  01D3 44D5 214B 8276 4ED5
"And now for something completely different."


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