Mail Archives: djgpp/2001/06/28/19:38:12
Hello.
Graaagh the Mighty wrote:
>
> Richard Dawe wrote:
>
> > Maybe if you upgrade to a later version (e.g. 2.95.3 or 3.0), it will
> > generate the warning you want?
>
> Where the h**l did those come from? Last I checked 2.95.2 was the most
> recent.
Subscribe to the djgpp-announce list to receive announcements about newly
DJGPP packages and other software. See http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/ .
The packages I have for gcc 2.95.3 are dated March 30th 2001. The alpha
packages I have for gcc 3.0 are dated May 24th 2001 (see v2gnu/alphas/ in
the DJGPP archive on Simtel.NET).
> In any case, failing to detect a missing return statement seems like a
> rather glaring omission from 2.95.2 given that the compiler'd been in
> active development and maintenance for years by that point. You'd
> expect any remaining bugs to fall into two classes: the extremely
> subtle (Heisenbugs, Mandelbugs) and bugs in experimental new features
> (a new optimization option, the latest attempt to make C++ templates
> work with the pre-existing legacy linker paradigm, etc.)
This bug is quite subtle, which is perhaps why it has slipped through the
net. All software has bugs - deal with it. Actually I would expect a third
category of bugs - undetected bugs in existing functionality.
Have you constructed a test case that exhibits the bug and reported it to
the GCC maintainers? (I must admit that I have not - I got distracted by
bugfixing my own software. ;) )
Bye,
--
Richard Dawe
http://www.phekda.freeserve.co.uk/richdawe/
- Raw text -