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

[Dale Johannesen <dalej at apple dot com>]

On Feb 9, 2005, at 4:50 PM, Giovanni Bajo wrote:
> Tom Schutter <tom@platte.com> wrote:
> > Given this program:
> >   static void foo(void) { return(1); }
> >   static void bar(void) { }
> >   static void baz(void) { return(bar()); }
> >   int main(int argc, char * argv[]) {
> >     baz();
> >     return(1);
> >   }
> 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()?

That looks like a C program to me, and it is not valid in C.  I don't
know why it only warns sometimes, though.