www.delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi | search |
From: | Richard Dawe <rich AT phekda DOT freeserve DOT co DOT uk> |
Newsgroups: | comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Subject: | Re: Strange behavior of compiler. |
Date: | Tue, 26 Jun 2001 21:29:31 +0100 |
Lines: | 19 |
Message-ID: | <3B38F0AB.655B722@phekda.freeserve.co.uk> |
References: | <Pine DOT SUN DOT 3 DOT 91 DOT 1010625160253 DOT 2920K-100000 AT is> <3b37e5df DOT 287898614 AT news DOT primus DOT ca> |
NNTP-Posting-Host: | modem-62.desitin.dialup.pol.co.uk |
Mime-Version: | 1.0 |
X-Trace: | news8.svr.pol.co.uk 993586894 19694 62.136.89.62 (26 Jun 2001 20:21:34 GMT) |
NNTP-Posting-Date: | 26 Jun 2001 20:21:34 GMT |
X-Complaints-To: | abuse AT theplanet DOT net |
X-Mailer: | Mozilla 4.77 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.2.19 i586) |
X-Accept-Language: | de,fr |
To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
DJ-Gateway: | from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp |
Reply-To: | djgpp AT delorie DOT com |
Hello. Graaagh the Mighty wrote: > Incidentally, one persistent annoyance has been the compiler failing > to bomb if a return is omitted along some execution path in a function > that's declared as returning a value. This obviously should be an > error if the compiler can prove that the function can in fact fail to > return a valid value for some inputs, and a warning in every other > case. Which version of gcc are you using (use: gcc -v)? Maybe if you upgrade to a later version (e.g. 2.95.3 or 3.0), it will generate the warning you want? Bye, -- Richard Dawe http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/
webmaster | delorie software privacy |
Copyright © 2019 by DJ Delorie | Updated Jul 2019 |