From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10091 invoked by alias); 7 Dec 2001 00:47:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 9922 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2001 00:46:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fencepost.gnu.org) (199.232.76.164) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2001 00:46:53 -0000 Received: from smtp1.legato.com ([137.69.200.1]) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 16C9AC-0007JQ-00 for ; Thu, 06 Dec 2001 19:46:52 -0500 Received: from mta1.legato.com (mta1.legato.com [137.69.1.14]) by smtp1.legato.com (Switch-2.1.3/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id fB70kkM13744; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:46:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.legato.com (mail [137.69.1.58]) by mta1.legato.com (Switch-2.1.3/Switch-2.1.0) with ESMTP id fB70kku02186; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:46:46 -0800 (PST) Received: from gadzooks (trilluser@gadzooks.legato.com [137.69.4.92]) by mail.legato.com (SendmailServer-1.0.4/8.11.1) with SMTP id fB70kJk10183; Thu, 6 Dec 2001 16:46:19 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <0b8101c17eb8$8dcdedd0$5c044589@legato.com> From: "David E. Weekly" To: "Dale Johannesen" Cc: References: <903FC75A-EAA8-11D5-8923-003065C86F94@apple.com> Subject: Re: -Wignored-returns? Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 16:59:00 -0000 Organization: Legato Systems, Inc. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000 X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00336.txt.bz2 Dale, Thanks for your prompt response, even if it's one that makes me sad. I don't really understand why GCC refuses to allow its users to specify this option. I perfectly understand not including it in -W or -Wall, but not even permitting this option to be made seems to be more about enforcing the particular tastes of the GCC developers than it does actually providing a useful compiler for users. ("Coming as I do from a Lisp background, I balk at the idea that there is something dangerous about discarding a value" was the excuse given.) It's rather patronizing to have the GCC developer team tell us what coding style we want to use. With the addition of this singular warning, we could completely eliminate lint and lclint from our development environment, saving us a whole lot of money. [sigh] It may be trickier without this simple feature. All the same, I have the deepest of gratitude towards the GCC development team for making an immensely powerful toolchain for nearly all of the platforms out there. -david PS: Dale, if GDB on OS/X 10.1.1 is itself segfaulting and getting "internal error"s right and left, are you the man with whom to speak? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dale Johannesen" To: "David E. Weekly" Cc: "Dale Johannesen" ; Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2001 4:22 PM Subject: Re: -Wignored-returns? On Thursday, December 6, 2001, at 04:11 PM, David E. Weekly wrote: > GCC Team, > > Hello! I saw in the GCC Bug mail archives a post that a certain Gray > Watson > had proposed in 1992 for warning on ignored return values: > http://www.geocrawler.com/mail/msg.php3?msg_id=1968564&list=356. Such a > warning flag would prove invaluable for myself and for others seeking to > wholly replace lint with GCC warning flags and seems trivial to implement. > Is this feature already in GCC or has it yet to be added? See "Certain Changes We Don't Want To Make" in trouble.texi.