From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26710 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2002 22:55:08 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 26690 invoked by uid 61); 18 Nov 2002 22:55:07 -0000 Date: Sun, 24 Nov 2002 13:30:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20021118225507.26689.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: 141015@bugs.debian.org, agthorr@barsoom.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, 141015@bugs.debian.org, agthorr@barsoom.org, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c/8609: Superfluous warning when -std=c99/gnu99 and noreturn on main() X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00912.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: Superfluous warning when -std=c99/gnu99 and noreturn on main() State-Changed-From-To: open->analyzed State-Changed-By: bangerth State-Changed-When: Mon Nov 18 14:55:06 2002 State-Changed-Why: I can reproduce this. I think, the warning comes from the fact that in C99, main() has an implicit "return 0" at its end, indicating that if you fall off the end of main(), the programs return value is zero. This also explains why it only happens with main(), not if you rename the function. That being said, since you cannot control who calls main and how, what reason should you have to mark main() as noreturn? It should not make any difference, so why do it? I have difficulty seeing this as a bug... http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8609