From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 96586 invoked by alias); 1 Jun 2016 16:39:23 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 96569 invoked by uid 89); 1 Jun 2016 16:39:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=digging, interest, among, HContent-Transfer-Encoding:8bit X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 01 Jun 2016 16:39:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E76E77F6B0; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:39:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (ovpn-116-51.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.51]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u51GdIUg007311 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 1 Jun 2016 12:39:19 -0400 Received: from tucnak.zalov.cz (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id u51GdGHd024628; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 18:39:17 +0200 Received: (from jakub@localhost) by tucnak.zalov.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id u51GdF1f024627; Wed, 1 Jun 2016 18:39:15 +0200 Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2016 16:39:00 -0000 From: Jakub Jelinek To: Marcin =?utf-8?Q?Baczy=C5=84ski?= Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Warn about return with a void expression with -Wreturn-type. Message-ID: <20160601163915.GU28550@tucnak.redhat.com> Reply-To: Jakub Jelinek References: <20160601115504.725560-1-marbacz@gmail.com> <20160601115504.725560-2-marbacz@gmail.com> <20160601120702.GO28550@tucnak.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-06/txt/msg00062.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 02:44:22PM +0200, Marcin Baczyński wrote: > On 1 Jun 2016 14:07, "Jakub Jelinek" wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 01:55:04PM +0200, Marcin Baczyński wrote: > > > PR c/48116. > > > > > > Botstrapped and tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. > > > > > > gcc/ChangeLog: > > > > > > * c/c-typeck.c (c_finish_return): emit warning about return with a > > > void expression in a function returning void if warn_return_type. > > > > This is a GNU extension, so I fail to see why you should warn. > > The bug is on the easyhacks list, I thought it would be a good place to > start digging into the GCC code base. First of all, I'm not the C FE maintainer, so these are just IMHO comments, the maintainers might have different opinion. > Do you have any suggestions for better things to start with? Welcome to GCC hacking! I'm must say I don't know in what state the easy hacks list is, but for bugs that have been sitting in bugzilla for many years there often is a reason why they haven't been addressed - it could be just lack of interest from anybody, or that they fell through without anybody noticing, but could be also that they aren't all that easy. Often the easiest to fix bugs could be among the most recently filed PRs. Jakub