You can put it in "(void)var;
" expression (does nothing) so that a compiler sees it is used. This is portable between compilers.
E.g.
void foo(int param1, int param2)
{
(void)param2;
bar(param1);
}
Or,
#define UNUSED(expr) do { (void)(expr); } while (0)
...
void foo(int param1, int param2)
{
UNUSED(param2);
bar(param1);
}
C99 and C++ standards don't require functions to return a value. The missing return statement in a value-returning function will be defined (to return 0
) only in the main
function.
The rationale includes that checking if every code path returns a value is quite difficult, and a return value could be set with embedded assembler or other tricky methods.
From C++11 draft:
§ 6.6.3/2
Flowing off the end of a function [...] results in undefined behavior in a value-returning function.
§ 3.6.1/5
If control reaches the end of main
without encountering a return
statement, the effect is that of executing
return 0;
Note that the behaviour described in C++ 6.6.3/2 is not the same in C.
gcc will give you a warning if you call it with -Wreturn-type option.
-Wreturn-type Warn whenever a function is defined with a return-type that
defaults to int. Also warn about any
return statement with no return-value
in a function whose return-type is not
void (falling off the end of the
function body is considered returning
without a value), and about a return
statement with an expression in a
function whose return-type is void.
This warning is enabled by -Wall.
Just as a curiosity, look what this code does:
#include <iostream>
int foo() {
int a = 5;
int b = a + 1;
}
int main() { std::cout << foo() << std::endl; } // may print 6
This code has formally undefined behaviour, and in practice it's calling convention and architecture dependent. On one particular system, with one particular compiler, the return value is the result of last expression evaluation, stored in the eax
register of that system's processor.
Best Solution
If by "global in a unique file", you mean
"int x;"
outside of any function, the it's not the compilers job to detect that, the variable needs to be available to the linker in case another compilation unit needs it (such as errno).If you meant
"static int x"
where it's not made available to the linker, this is probably just a choice made by GCC. I don't believe compilers are required to notify of this and it does no real damage other than wasting a few bytes in your address space.