From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-prs-return-24719-listarch-gcc-prs=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 18208 invoked by alias); 19 Nov 2002 01:13:41 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-prs/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-prs-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-prs-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 18187 invoked by uid 61); 19 Nov 2002 01:13:40 -0000
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 07:16:00 -0000
Message-ID: <20021119011340.18186.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/msg00933.txt.bz2
List-Id: <gcc-prs.sourceware.org>

Synopsis: Superfluous warning when -std=c99/gnu99 and noreturn on main()

State-Changed-From-To: analyzed->closed
State-Changed-By: bangerth
State-Changed-When: Mon Nov 18 17:13:39 2002
State-Changed-Why:
    Closed based on these comments:
    
    Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 16:30:10 -0800
    From: Agthorr <agthorr@barsoom.org>
    To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
    Subject: Re: c/8609: Superfluous warning when -std=c99/gnu99 and noreturn on main()
    
    I was mistaken.  gcc 2.95 complains when main() is not noreturn, which
    caused me to declare main() as noreturn.  Later, I upgraded to gcc
    3.0, which complains when main() is noreturn.
    
    The warning described in the original bug still seems wrong to me, but
    it's much less bothersome.  I'll admit to being a perfectionist though ;)
    
    
    Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:10:48 -0800
    From: Agthorr <agthorr@barsoom.org>
    To: Wolfgang Bangerth <bangerth@ticam.utexas.edu>
    Subject: Re: c/8609: Superfluous warning when -std=c99/gnu99 and noreturn on main()
    
    On Mon, Nov 18, 2002 at 06:46:42PM -0600, Wolfgang Bangerth wrote:
    > So am I right that you now have two switches for both compilers that give
    > you a warning on one but not the other, and omitting the right one on the
    > right compiler makes the warning go away?
    
    Yes.
    
    > If this is the case, I would suggest we close the report. I think, this is
    > such a corner case (main() being the only function for which an implicit
    > return is mandated), that it is hardly worth to think about it more if
    > there is a workaround.
    
    Fine by me.
    

http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=8609