On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 04:07:36PM +0000, Timothy Gu wrote: > On Fri Feb 06 2015 at 1:28:09 AM Carl Eugen Hoyos <ceho...@ag.or.at> wrote: > > > Timothy Gu <timothygu99 <at> gmail.com> writes: > > > > > if (!i || !*val) > > > return 0; > > > } > > > - > > > - return 0; > > > } > > > > > > > I fear that some (broken) compilers will emit > > a warning when this gets applied that we > > request to be interpreted as an error. > > Same for 3, 4 and 5. > > > > Do you want to remove some warnings from some good compilers, or from some > dumb compilers? I'd go with the first.
Well, personally I don't like it when functions returning a value don't end with a return statement. Plus no matter how clever the compiler there's always going to be cases where it can't figure out that the end of the function is unreachable. In most cases it's also possible to reasonably avoid warnings with both. In the above case I guess you could replace the return 0 in the if by a break instead. In some cases risking a warning might be better than contorting the code... _______________________________________________ ffmpeg-devel mailing list ffmpeg-devel@ffmpeg.org http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-devel
