On 06/20/2011 02:28 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Jun 20, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:
top_button_cross() probably should be declared as returning void. What's
presumably happening is that it gets a default return type of int since it
doesn't otherwise specify a return type, and then fails to have an explicit
return, which is an error.
Is a return with no value, from a function of type int, meant to be an error in
K&R code?
I don't believe so, but pure K&R didn't require compilers to perform any sanity
checking of function return types. This led to all sorts of bugs, which is why
lint was invented and why ANSI-C compilers do expect function prototypes and
perform function return-type checking.
If so, I will change the code so that "return" becomes "return 0".
Otherwise, I think the clang compiler should be changed so that this is a
warning, not an error. Or at least an error that can be switched off with
-Wno-return-type.
I will say that I have no desire to put ansii patches into working K&R code.
It sounds like you want Clang to support -traditional.
It explicitly does not do so, although there is a bug filed as:
http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4557
The best course is to convert K&R C code to C89/ANSI; failing that, perhaps use
gcc for things which require -traditional instead of Clang (although GCC seems to
be depreciating -traditional also).
This is someone else's code in math/xppaut. I have no desire to write
extensive patches to his code. It would be a nightmare to maintain.
I'll go with "return 0".
Stephen
_______________________________________________
freebsd-ports@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ports
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-ports-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
