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 1A1303851C1D; Wed,  3 Jun 2020 21:13:13 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 1A1303851C1D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gcc.gnu.org;
 s=default; t=1591218793;
 bh=CFGhWthI4zizsI+YrOrQROU1Tac4iqjgsWOfWSZg1SI=;
 h=From:To:Subject:Date:From;
 b=vLokrCvkxjy73vopv9jOXk4VHUuYc9H+KGFfTS1YrKYgIo8bCxuL8GljHNH3IRt8c
 Cz4+a02IigfG0FMWX3MQepaGWKZcLbYisc4yRzjBgPTVddgv1aN6oYzYUEV15EgQVJ
 bliF2XI7wktyKGyFBp8zCjprSBMlb6TtlH+sVoqM=
From: "bruck.michael at gmail dot com" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug c++/95517] New: [coroutines] suggested warning when co_return
 and return_void() are missing
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 21:13:12 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: new
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gcc
X-Bugzilla-Component: c++
X-Bugzilla-Version: 10.1.0
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: bruck.michael 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: bug_id short_desc product version bug_status
 bug_severity priority component assigned_to reporter target_milestone
Message-ID: <bug-95517-4@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
X-BeenThere: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gcc-bugs mailing list <gcc-bugs.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/options/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc-bugs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://gcc.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gcc-bugs>,
 <mailto:gcc-bugs-request@gcc.gnu.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 21:13:13 -0000

https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D95517

            Bug ID: 95517
           Summary: [coroutines] suggested warning when co_return and
                    return_void() are missing
           Product: gcc
           Version: 10.1.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P3
         Component: c++
          Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
          Reporter: bruck.michael at gmail dot com
  Target Milestone: ---

[stmt.return.coroutine]
"3 If p.return_void() is a valid expression, flowing off the end of a corou=
tine
is equivalent to a co_return with no operand; otherwise flowing off the end=
 of
a coroutine results in undefined behavior."

It would be useful to diagnose this.

Example code that includes the undefined behavior and produces no warnings =
with
-Wall -Wextra:
---
#include <coroutine>

struct dummy
{
    struct promise_type
    {
        dummy get_return_object() const noexcept { return {}; }
        std::suspend_never initial_suspend() const noexcept { return {}; }
        std::suspend_never final_suspend() const noexcept { return {}; }
        //void return_void() const noexcept {}
        void unhandled_exception() const noexcept {}
    };
    int i; // work around #95516
};

dummy foo()
{=20
    co_await std::suspend_never{};
    //co_return;
}

int main()
{
    foo();
}=