From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-12675-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 22788 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2002 01:39:03 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 22682 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2002 01:39:01 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO boden.synopsys.com) (204.176.20.19)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2002 01:39:01 -0000
Received: from maiden.synopsys.com (maiden.synopsys.com [146.225.100.170])
	by boden.synopsys.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 2DB8BDBB1; Sat,  9 Feb 2002 17:39:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from atrus.synopsys.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by maiden.synopsys.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA05930;
	Sat, 9 Feb 2002 17:39:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.COM>
Received: (from jbuck@localhost)
	by atrus.synopsys.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) id RAA25290;
	Sat, 9 Feb 2002 17:38:59 -0800 (PST)
Message-Id: <200202100138.RAA25290@atrus.synopsys.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix PR gdb/290
To: schwab@suse.de (Andreas Schwab)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2002 17:39:00 -0000
Cc: jbuck@synopsys.COM (Joe Buck),
	ac131313@cygnus.com (Andrew Cagney), kettenis@chello.nl,
	gcc@gcc.gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
In-Reply-To: <jelme2pfxc.fsf@suse.de> from "Andreas Schwab" at Feb 09, 2002 09:18:39 PM
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00290.txt.bz2

> Joe Buck <jbuck@synopsys.COM> writes:
> 
> |> For C89, I don't think it's legal though it may be reasonable to accept
> |> as an extension; I don't know about C99.
> 
> The C99 standard is quite clear about this:
> 
>     6.8.6.4[#1] A return statement with an expression shall not appear in
>     a function whose return type is void.  A return statement without an
>     expression shall only appear in a function whose return type is void.

OK, then this can only be done in C++.  Any C code should avoid it.

for 
void foo();
void bar() { return foo();}

(which is legal C++)

I've just checked, and gcc 2.95.2 and 3.0.3 reject this type of C code
iff -ansi -pedantic is specified.  By default they accept it.  Anyone
developing code that must compile with many compilers probably should
be using -pedantic.