View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0000084 | LDMud 3.3 | LPC Compiler/Preprocessor | public | 2004-07-13 06:04 | 2009-03-03 14:50 |
| Reporter | menaures | Assigned To | |||
| Priority | normal | Severity | feature | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | closed | Resolution | won't fix | ||
| Summary | 0000084: Make pragma warn_missing_return default off | ||||
| Description | I think this pragma should be default-off; until now, it was considered a feature that uninitialized variables are 0 and functions without return values return 0. So, naturally, nobody (at least none of the old-school lpc programmers) wants to have to add these "return 0" at the end of each non-void function. It's nice to have such a pragma, it can be useful in certain cases, but if I use it it will be as rarely as I use for example strict_types pragma. | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
|
|
I agree to that. There are even cases like a switch() statement with a 'return' in each of the branches, where the end of the function will never be reached. To add a 'return' statement only to satisfy the driver sounds odd. |
|
|
Mhmm, most of you probably know this, but if not: the immediate solution for people who don't like the current default behaviour is to use the H_AUTO_INCLUDE driver hook: set_driver_hook(H_AUTO_INCLUDE, "#pragma no_warn_missing_return\n"); For files, you would like to have the warnings, you can then add the #pragma warn_missing_return individually. |
|
|
Gnomi and I discussed shortly about this. Basically we both think, that at the current state probably all users who don't like to default, have added it to their auto-include hook. So if we change now, the only result is, that all users who want to have the warning, have to add it to their auto-include hook as well... (Of course, we both agree that 0000332 is the major problem of this pragma.) |
|
|
As nobody else writes anything, I close this one and and suggest to leave the default as it is with the argument given in Note 888. Please re-open if you disagree. |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-07-13 06:04 | menaures | New Issue | |
| 2008-01-25 17:13 | Coogan | Note Added: 0000587 | |
| 2008-04-01 04:59 | zesstra | Note Added: 0000608 | |
| 2009-01-08 04:13 | zesstra | Relationship added | related to 0000332 |
| 2009-01-14 03:28 | zesstra | Note Added: 0000888 | |
| 2009-03-03 14:50 | zesstra | Note Added: 0000965 | |
| 2009-03-03 14:50 | zesstra | Status | new => closed |
| 2009-03-03 14:50 | zesstra | Resolution | open => won't fix |
