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/

- Raw text -