Date: Sat, 13 Jul 2002 02:34:56 +0200 From: Stefan Farfeleder <e0026813@stud3.tuwien.ac.at> To: Chris BeHanna <behanna@zbzoom.net> Cc: FreeBSD-Stable <stable@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: GCC/header-related regressions on -STABLE Message-ID: <20020713003456.GB238@frog.fafoe> In-Reply-To: <20020712201311.T39095-100000@topperwein.dyndns.org> References: <Pine.BSF.4.44.0207111354090.22305-100000@pulcherrima.dbai.tuwien.ac.at> <20020712201311.T39095-100000@topperwein.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Jul 12, 2002 at 08:13:50PM -0400, Chris BeHanna wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
>
> > standards/40084 and standards/40402 constitute significant regressions
> > on -STABLE, which definitely should be fixed for 4.6.1-RELEASE.
> >
> > Having three-line C++ programs like the following
> > #include <iostream>
> > #include <string>
> > int main() { }
> > issue three(!) warnings with g++ -pedantic is A Very Bad Thing[TM],
> > especially on -STABLE.
>
> Should it not at least gripe that there's no return statement in a
> non-void function?
Both C++ and C99 treat main() specially: leaving the function's scope
without an explicit "return"-statement means that 0 is returned to the
implementation.
Stefan Farfeleder
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020713003456.GB238>