From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jun 20 19:44:41 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 408B21065675; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:44:41 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Received: from wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 074148FC1C; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:44:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (wilberforce.math.missouri.edu [128.206.184.213]) by wilberforce.math.missouri.edu (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p5KJid6J001297; Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:44:39 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from stephen@missouri.edu) Message-ID: <4DFFA327.3050402@missouri.edu> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 14:44:39 -0500 From: Stephen Montgomery-Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110516 Thunderbird/3.1.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Chuck Swiger References: <20110620153753.GA41541@freebsd.org> <4DFF73E3.5010405@gmail.com> <4DFF76C7.5070001@missouri.edu> <432743E3-272A-40F5-AF31-6C1805F620F3@mac.com> <4DFF9AE3.10609@missouri.edu> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Niclas Zeising , Roman Divacky , "freebsd-ports@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: [ANNOUNCE]: clang compiling ports X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:44:41 -0000 On 06/20/2011 02:28 PM, Chuck Swiger wrote: > On Jun 20, 2011, at 12:09 PM, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote: >>> top_button_cross() probably should be declared as returning void. What's presumably happening is that it gets a default return type of int since it doesn't otherwise specify a return type, and then fails to have an explicit return, which is an error. >> >> Is a return with no value, from a function of type int, meant to be an error in K&R code? > > I don't believe so, but pure K&R didn't require compilers to perform any sanity checking of function return types. This led to all sorts of bugs, which is why lint was invented and why ANSI-C compilers do expect function prototypes and perform function return-type checking. > >> If so, I will change the code so that "return" becomes "return 0". >> >> Otherwise, I think the clang compiler should be changed so that this is a warning, not an error. Or at least an error that can be switched off with -Wno-return-type. >> >> I will say that I have no desire to put ansii patches into working K&R code. > > It sounds like you want Clang to support -traditional. > It explicitly does not do so, although there is a bug filed as: > > http://llvm.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=4557 > > The best course is to convert K&R C code to C89/ANSI; failing that, perhaps use gcc for things which require -traditional instead of Clang (although GCC seems to be depreciating -traditional also). This is someone else's code in math/xppaut. I have no desire to write extensive patches to his code. It would be a nightmare to maintain. I'll go with "return 0". Stephen