This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] add return values to return statements in non-void functions
- From: David Blaikie <dblaikie at gmail dot com>
- To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:26:02 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch] add return values to return statements in non-void functions
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <CAENS6Ev9CdJBUt9JaFtsroSD=gC3OfnHFYBdd=hPENWGCxv8SA at mail dot gmail dot com> <21336 dot 22905 dot 197076 dot 913141 at ruffy dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <CADPb22TTLJ_vepoeFM8QWxG7YJtoCvDaGCVjVc5-dwRC6=J5eQ at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 5:23 PM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
>> David Blaikie writes:
>> > These missing return values cause build breaks with clang which
>> > defaults the -Wreturn-type warning to an error in this case.
>> >
>> > Add the right return values so these tests can run when using clang.
>> > commit ce1534e51863af5d935cdc63c44df0fa64a46653
>> > Author: David Blaikie <dblaikie@gmail.com>
>> > Date: Fri Apr 11 17:20:49 2014 -0700
>> >
>> > Add return value for non-void function return statements to fix error in clang build.
>> >
>> > Clang defaults this warning to an error, breaking the build & causing
>> > these tests not to run.
>> >
>> > gdb/testsuite/
>> >
>> > * gdb.mi/non-stop.c: Add return value for non-void function return
>> > statement.
>> > * gdb.threads/staticthreads.c: Ditto.
>>
>> ChangeLog rules require being more specific about where the change happened.
>> E.g.,
>>
>> * gdb.mi/non-stop.c (worker): Add return value for non-void function
>> return statement.
>> * gdb.threads/staticthreads.c (thread_function): Ditto.
>>
>> Ok with those changes.
>> Thanks!
>
> Bleah. Missed that this one was also already approved.
> [that's what I get for switching back and forth between mail readers]
No worries - I'll try to keep that in mind for future ChangeLogs. (I
assume it's preferred not to go back and fix the ChangeLog that was
already committed in this instance)