On 2011-01-01 09:32, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday 31 December 2010 23:37:17 Daren Scot Wilson wrote:
I'm wondering why the following compiles. I'm using LDC. Perhaps it's a
bug, or there's some subtlety about D. I have deliberately, out of a
combination of idleness and desire for mischief, have main() declared as
returning void, but with a return statement giving an integer.
If the first "half evil" return statement is uncommented, the corruption is
noticed by the compiler and it writes an error.
As shown, the "total evil" return statement gets a value from subroutine
foo(). Being somehow so perfect in its evilness, this passes through the
compiler without a burp. The resulting executable returns zero (or my bash
shell defaults to zero when receiving nothing.)
When I get religion and like good boy declare main() as returing int, it
compiles in perfectly. When executed, the program returns either number
according to which return statement is uncommented.
int foo(int x) {
return x;
}
void main() {
// return 333; /* half evil */
return foo(666); /* total evil */
}
I don't know what LDC's current state is in terms of being up-to-date with the
latest D. However, it is _not_ legal D to return a value from a void function.
So, this is definitely a bug in LDC.
- Jonathan M Davis
It's the same with dmd v2.051 on GNU/Linux
