This is _not_ a bug. This is _C_, not C++. ISO C99
requires a diagnostic for it. I think what's going on is
that the compiler is warning about a return with a value
in function returning void in foo(), but baz() is trying
to return a value from a function that never returned
anything. This is probably a confusingly worded warning.
Samuel Lauber
> > Given this program:
> > static void foo(void) { return(1); }
> > static void bar(void) { }
> > static void baz(void) { return(bar()); }
> > int main(int argc, char * argv[]) {
> > baz();
> > return(1);
> > }
> >
> > A compile without -pedantic gives a warning for foo(), but not for
> > baz():
> > $ gcc-3.4 foo.c
> > foo.c: In function `foo':
> > foo.c:1: warning: `return' with a value, in function returning void
> >
> > A compile with -pedantic gives a warning for both functions.
> > $ gcc-3.4 -pedantic foo.c
> > foo.c: In function `foo':
> > foo.c:1: warning: `return' with a value, in function returning void
> > foo.c: In function `baz':
> > foo.c:3: warning: `return' with a value, in function returning void
>
> The code in baz() is perfectly legal since ISO C++ allows void
> returns. -pedantic should not warn about it because it is not a GCC extension
> at all. Would you please file a bugreport about the incorrect warning emitted
> for baz()?
>
> Thanks
> Giovanni Bajo
--
_____________________________________________________________
Web-based SMS services available at http://www.operamail.com.
From your mailbox to local or overseas cell phones.
Powered by Outblaze
