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] |
On 25/04/18 16:30 +0100, Andrew Haley wrote:
On 04/25/2018 03:04 PM, Jonathan Wakely wrote: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.Sure. Having said that, the cases that bit me were those where control always flowed off the end, i.e. the function contained no return statement.
I forget the "return *this;" in assignment operators embarrassingly often. So often I've even contemplated a proposal to define flowing off the end of an assignment operator equivalent to "return *this;"
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |