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?

From: Tom Schutter <tom at platte dot com>
To: Andrew Pinski <pinskia at physics dot uc dot edu>
Cc: Giovanni Bajo <giovannibajo at libero dot it>, gcc at gcc dot gnu dot org
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 09:42:56 -0700
Subject: Re: Why is this diagnostic only reported with -pedantic?
Organization: Platte River Associates, Inc.
References: <1107990381.29923.6.camel@rota.bou.platte.com> <038401c50f0a$950ca290$d64e2a97@bagio> <eb633aa45c6f5abb11cea6f3db656faa@physics.uc.edu>

On Wed, 2005-02-09 at 19:55 -0500, Andrew Pinski wrote:
> > 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()?
> 
> Actually don't because the orginal code was run over the C front-end 
> where this
> is a GCC extension.  The C++ front-end does the correct thing in that 
> it does
> not warn/error out about the return value at all.
> 
> -- Pinski

What GCC extension are you referring to?

--
Tom Schutter

References:
- Why is this diagnostic only reported with -pedantic?
  - From: Tom Schutter
- Re: Why is this diagnostic only reported with -pedantic?
  - From: Giovanni Bajo
- Re: Why is this diagnostic only reported with -pedantic?
  - From: Andrew Pinski

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