Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!mtunx!rutgers!uwvax!oddjob!mimsy!eneevax!umd5!ncifcrf!nlm-mcs!brl-adm!brl-smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: C Compiler bugs
Message-ID: <8030@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: 7 Jun 88 08:39:11 GMT
References: <15085@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> <4421@haddock.ISC.COM> <15202@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) )
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 11

In article <15202@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> lvc@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu (Lawrence V. Cipriani) writes:
>It certainly would be appropriate for lint, but don't you think this is
>a stupid thing for a compiler to allow?  Maybe not, but I do.

I seem to recall you said that this so-called bug had been "fixed".
Was it fixed by building in knowledge that main() returns an int
(in which case how do you disable that "knowledge" for compiling
freestanding applications?), or was it "fixed" by making it
impossible for a function to return a structure (which C allows),
or was it "fixed" by noticing the mismatch between the defined
return type and the value actually returned by "return" statements?