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]

Re: Should we make "implicit declaration of function" a mandatory warning?

To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
Subject: Re: Should we make "implicit declaration of function" a mandatory warning?
From: Jamie Lokier <egcs at tantalophile dot demon dot co dot uk>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2001 10:29:46 +0100
Cc: Zack Weinberg <zackw at stanford dot edu>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
References: <20010114234923.D18622@wolery.stanford.edu> <Pine.LNX.4.30.0101150805320.29381-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>

Joseph S. Myers wrote:
> The most likely case these days is actually probably going to be that the
> program is a quick hack (otherwise -Wall should be used), and the return
> value isn't being used so the programmer doesn't really care.

Perhaps there should be a warning "return type `int' of implicitly
declared function `exp' may be incorrect" iff the return value is
not simply ignored discarded.

-- Jamie

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Should we make "implicit declaration of function" a mandatory warning?
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz

References:
- Should we make "implicit declaration of function" a mandatory warning?
  - From: Zack Weinberg
- Re: Should we make "implicit declaration of function" a mandatorywarning?
  - From: Joseph S. Myers

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