From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Hannes Eder" Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/27] drivers/net: fix sparse warning: returning void-valued expression Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 15:39:59 +0100 Message-ID: <154e089b0812260639t65968a2crbbf6c0a8f8d468cf@mail.gmail.com> References: <20081222191259.11807.53190.stgit@vmbox.hanneseder.net> <20081222191517.11807.20718.stgit@vmbox.hanneseder.net> <20081225.161740.10052019.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org To: "David Miller" Return-path: Received: from yx-out-2324.google.com ([74.125.44.30]:3040 "EHLO yx-out-2324.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752389AbYLZOkB (ORCPT ); Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:40:01 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20081225.161740.10052019.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Disposition: inline Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 1:17 AM, David Miller wrote: > From: Hannes Eder > Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 20:15:17 +0100 > >> Fix this sparse warning: >> >> drivers/net/niu.c:8850:2: warning: returning void-valued expression >> >> Signed-off-by: Hannes Eder > > Can we just fix sparse not to generate this warning? It's > marginal, at best. C++ even explicitly defines this as valid > and last time I brought this up Linus even agreed. > > The types match, the function returns void and it is returning a void, > what is the problem? after reading the following thread I decided to submit such type of patches: On Thu, 1 May 2008 at 13:53:39 +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 03:42:14PM +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > > 3. 6.8.6.4(1): A return statement with an expression shall not appear in > > > a function whose return type is void. > > > > > > > Please forgive my ignorance, where is this quote from? > > C99. I don't have C90 in front of me, so I can't give you exact quote from > there, but it's been explicitly banned in C90 as well. see http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/5/1/112