Small issue on GnuTLS 2.10.2

[Simon Josefsson]

Sam Varshavchik <mrsam at courier-mta.com> writes:

> Vivek Dasmohapatra writes:
>
>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Vivek Dasmohapatra wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 30 Sep 2010, Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Thanks, fixed.  I wish we could catch these with a GCC warning so you
>>>>> don't have to run into them all the time...
>>>
>>> make sizeof
>>> cc     sizeof.c   -o sizeof
>>> sizeof.c: In function ‘wfm’:
>>> sizeof.c:11: warning: ‘return’ with a value, in function returning void
>>>
>>> tested wiith: gcc (Debian 4.4.3-3) 4.4.3
>>>              gcc (GCC) 4.2.4 (Ubuntu 4.2.4-1ubuntu4)
>>>
>>> Seems to warn just fine.

And sizeof.c looks how?  I don't think you tested our situation:

jas at mocca:~$ cat foo.c
void foo (void)
{
  return;
}

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

int main (void)
{
  bar ();
  return 0;
}
jas at mocca:~$ gcc -o foo foo.c -Wall -Wextra
jas at mocca:~$ gcc --version
gcc (Debian 4.4.4-8) 4.4.5 20100728 (prerelease)
jas at mocca:~$ 

>> And you can crank up the pedantry even further with --pedantic,
>> which will warn of a void expression return in a function
>> with a void return signature.
>
> And -Werror, which will make any warning fail the build.

I already build with -Werror together with the following warnings:

-Wall -W -Wframe-larger-than=2100 -Wformat-security -Winit-self -Wmissing-include-dirs -Wunused -Wunknown-pragmas -Wstrict-aliasing -Wfloat-equal -Wdeclaration-after-statement -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wcast-align -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wmissing-declarations -Wmissing-format-attribute -Wpacked -Wredundant-decls -Wnested-externs -Winline -Winvalid-pch -Wlong-long -Wvla -Wvolatile-register-var -Wdisabled-optimization -Wstack-protector -Woverlength-strings -Wbuiltin-macro-redefined -Wmudflap -Wpacked-bitfield-compat -Wsync-nand -Wattributes -Wcoverage-mismatch -Wmultichar -Wunused-macros -Wno-missing-field-initializers -Wno-sign-compare -Wno-pointer-sign -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-unused-parameter -Wno-stack-protector -Wno-int-to-pointer-cast -fdiagnostics-show-option

However none of those warnings catches a return void situation.

Yes, --pedantic catches this problem, but it also triggers on many other
constructs that we haven't fixed, and some of the --pedantic warnings
doesn't make sense.

So it would be great if there were a single gcc warning flag to enable
this particular warning, rather than the heavy handed --pedantic.

/Simon