From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16841 invoked by alias); 9 May 2003 01:01:26 -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 16817 invoked by uid 48); 9 May 2003 01:01:26 -0000 Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 01:01:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030509010126.16816.qmail@sources.redhat.com> To: Tim.Barnett@hekate.org.uk, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nathan@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org From: bangerth@dealii.org Reply-To: bangerth@dealii.org, Tim.Barnett@hekate.org.uk, gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-prs@gcc.gnu.org, nathan@gcc.gnu.org, nobody@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-gnats@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: c++/7551: g++ does not mind non-void functions which return no value. X-SW-Source: 2003-05/txt/msg00684.txt.bz2 List-Id: Synopsis: g++ does not mind non-void functions which return no value. Responsible-Changed-From-To: unassigned->nathan Responsible-Changed-By: bangerth Responsible-Changed-When: Fri May 9 01:01:26 2003 Responsible-Changed-Why: Nathan, would you mind taking a second look at this one? I don't understand your analysis: of course the warning is for falling off the edge of foo(), but foo still returns an int, at least as far as main() is concerned, and therefore we shouldn't be expecting a warning in main, should we? If we would, then this would imply that we would do interprocedural analysis... W. http://gcc.gnu.org/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gcc&pr=7551