[ANNOUNCE]: clang compiling ports

[Chuck Swiger]

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).

Regards,
-- 
-Chuck