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: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++

From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely at redhat dot com>
To: Andrew Haley <aph at redhat dot com>
Cc: Jason Merrill <jason at redhat dot com>, gcc Mailing List <gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org>
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 15:04:52 +0100
Subject: Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++
References: <20180425122305.GS20930@redhat.com> <7039f928-e50b-1f75-4f71-70fda5873ab0@redhat.com> <CADzB+2nRWYXx1s7vfZaXO+LsZE3NA08wMdoAhEdYH9QKLhS_Ng@mail.gmail.com> <53171c2e-1d8d-91f7-c6f7-16273e8840a6@redhat.com>

On 25/04/18 14:59 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:

On 04/25/2018 02:56 PM, Jason Merrill wrote:

The warning by default seems sufficient to me.


Yes.  We've been bitten by this a few times, with mysterious crashes.
I'm not sure it even makes sense only to be a warning, but I guess
that's up to the C++ TC.


It's not always possible for the compiler to prove that flowing off
the end never happens, even if the program state ensures that it can't
(e.g. by all callers enforcing the function's preconditions
correctly). So making it ill-formed is deemed too draconian whenever
this gets discussed.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++
  - From: Andrew Haley

References:
- [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++
  - From: Jonathan Wakely
- Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++
  - From: Andrew Haley
- Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++
  - From: Jason Merrill
- Re: [RFC] Deprecate "implicit int" for main() in C++
  - From: Andrew Haley

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