Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!orchid!rbutterworth
From: rbutterworth@orchid.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: impossible problem for find(1)?
Message-ID: <7328@orchid.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-May-87 11:04:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: orchid.7328
Posted: Tue May  5 11:04:24 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 6-May-87 05:46:06 EDT
References: <2645@phri.UUCP> <6454@mimsy.UUCP> <5797@brl-smoke.ARPA> <477@haddock.UUCP>
Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 27

In article <477@haddock.UUCP>, karl@haddock.UUCP (Karl Heuer) writes:
> In article <474@haddock.UUCP> karl@haddock.ISC.COM.UUCP (Karl Heuer) writes:
> I suppose I should clarify this.  The first "void" means "logically void",
> i.e. a function with no return value; the second refers to the actual
> declaration.  For example, "int nullf() {}" is acceptable to the lint I just
> tried, and is still legitimate in X3J11 unless they've changed recently.
> (In my opinion, it should be retained for backward compatibility, but should
> be marked as deprecated.)

One of the lints we use here (on GCOS8 (approaching ANSI)) treats
    int func1(int a) { printf("%d", a); return;}
        func2(int a) { printf("%d", a); return;}
quite differently.  func2() is perfectly valid (except for ignoring
the status returned by printf), but func1() causes a complaint that
it was explicitly declared int but fails to return a value.

Our modified BSD 4.3 lint has a /*GOTO*/ directive in the function
declaration that indicates that the function never returns.
e.g.  extern /*GOTO*/ exit();
The /*NOTREACHED*/ directive is thus never needed (it never was
very useful anyway since lint only gives warnings if you remember
to use it).  Such a directive really should be part of the language
though since it would let the compiler generate better code.

(And for those that have asked, no, our changes aren't yet in a form
where we could send them out easily.  Would anyone at Berkeley be
interested in them?)