From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 4B7E93857019; Mon,  2 Oct 2023 10:17:11 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4B7E93857019
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
	s=default; t=1696241831;
	bh=E34dkjHMjMnpP9lSXytzS5R+0SQHJAm51NYlbtOIQR4=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=JlEn+SekUW+mv7Vkr53fHfrqIZnF8b5lON/AIY0OjqN5At916chm0QsWX0iLfBnax
	 cjHeVJMx/xiMUAsft2tG76LGQRd+SX+pp3zMnrN0Pz8qGR5mE2NEFYwGMTZC1mLf+6
	 TjS+J1pR+LbFkk4rZUui1++LzYV89Cr0C1aCZ+T4=
From: "tanksherman27 at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c/111654] Introduce clang's invalid-noreturn warning
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2023 10:17:10 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c
X-Bugzilla-Version: unknown
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: diagnostic
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: tanksherman27 at gmail dot com
X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P3
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-111654-4-aDtdicW0u4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-111654-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-111654-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
List-Id: <gcc-bugs.sourceware.org>

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D111654

--- Comment #2 from Julian Waters <tanksherman27 at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Manuel L=C3=B3pez-Ib=C3=A1=C3=B1ez from comment #1)
> (In reply to Julian Waters from comment #0)
> > Created attachment 56022 [details]
> > Patch to add invalid-noreturn to gcc
>=20
> Patches should be submitted to gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>=20
> For more details, please read:
> https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/GettingStarted#Basics:
> _Contributing_to_GCC_in_10_easy_steps
>=20
> Except for clang compatibility, I believe the consensus is that numerical
> levels are not user-friendly. I think it would be better to have:
>=20
> -Wnoreturn-implicit-return
> -Wnoreturn-explicit-return
>=20
> -Winvalid-noreturn enables / disables both.

Yeah, I did try submitting it to gcc-patches, but it simply went ignored for
forever, so I decided to submit the patch through the bug system instead, l=
ike
others have done. I implemented it as numeric values to avoid inventing new
names for -Woption and because it was easier to implement for a gcc beginner
like myself, so worded warnings are likely to take me longer to implement=