🚀 go-pugleaf

Fred Ma <fma@doe.carleton.ca> writes:

> I had a class member function that returned an object, according to
> the prototype.  Also according to the function definition.  But, the
> function body didn't actually contain a return statement.  Like
> SomeFunc() below:

[snip]

> The frustrating thing is that the compiler didn't complain at all
> about the discrepancy between the lack of a return statement, even
> though the function needed one.  I personally find this kind of
> thing quite common when I reorganize my code e.g. moving
> functionality in and out of class member functions; that is, the
> finger details like return types and argument lists change so that
> it's easy to miss.

Always compile your stuff with -Wall.  That should enable the warning.

> P.S.  Since this happens only on cygwin, it might specific to any
> customizations to g++ for cygwin.  All in all, cygwin's gcc is a
> much better indication of whether my code is buggy, because the
> solaris executables generally seem to run fine even when there are
> cringe- inducing bugs, which I only find because they crash on
> cygwin.

One could argue that it is the cygwin environment that is buggy, since
it causes programs to crash, even though they run correctly on
solaris.

-- 
M�ns Rullg�rd
mru@users.sf.net