https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67629
--- Comment #9 from Eric Gallager <egallager at gcc dot gnu.org> --- (In reply to Matthew Woehlke from comment #8) > Given what -Wreturn-type is trying to accomplish, I wonder if a "delayed > issuance" strategy would be in order? IOW, have the front end "trigger" the > warning, as now, but stuff it in a queue or such, continue on with > optimization, then go back and check the queue to see if the warning still > looks legitimate, and only *then* emit it. > > Where this gets sticky is that at -O0, we still may not know that the > warning is spurious. We might, ideally, want to perform optimization anyway > on a function with a "pending" -Wreturn-type warning, but throw out the > result. I think Martin Sebor's work to introduce a __builtin_warning() function might be relevant here...
