Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!psuvax1!psuvm!cmh117
From: CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu (Charles Hannum)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Passing functions in C
Message-ID: <90072.144530CMH117@psuvm.psu.edu>
Date: 13 Mar 90 19:45:30 GMT
References: <1990Mar9.045151.9601@ucselx.sdsu.edu>
 <3242@hcx1.SSD.CSD.HARRIS.COM> <3243@hcx1.SSD.CSD.HARRIS.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Penn State University
Lines: 31


In article <3243@hcx1.SSD.CSD.HARRIS.COM>, brad@SSD.CSD.HARRIS.COM (Brad
Appleton) says:
>
>incidentally, that brings up an interesting point! If I have a function
>
>   int foo() { int i; i = 10; }
>
>without a specified return value, what will be returned when foo is called.
>On one compiler I have used, it will return "10" because 10 was the last
>"thing that was evaluated". I doubt that this is reliable however (is it?)
>
>Should the compiler catch the "missing return" or is that left strictly
>to lint?

Old style C compilers that did not support the void type simply used int
functions that didn't return a value.  Thus, out of habit, some compilers
*still* don't catch missing return values.  There should at least be a
warning you can turn on that will catch this, though you should be able
to turn it off when working with old C programs.

>advTHANXance

Cute.


Virtually,
- Charles Martin Hannum II       "Klein bottle for sale ... inquire within."
    (That's Charles to you!)     "To life immortal!"
  cmh117@psuvm.{bitnet,psu.edu}  "No noozzzz izzz netzzzsnoozzzzz..."
  c9h@psuecl.{bitnet,psu.edu}    "Mem'ry, all alone in the moonlight ..."