Is there a reason not to remove the meaningless qualifiers? Generally the rationale for warning about something that has no effect is that presumably when you wrote it you expected it to do something.
On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 5:50 PM Joel Sherrill <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > I have been trying to eliminate all warnings at -Wextra for RTEMS before we > make our next major release. There were a handful of cases where > -Wignored-qualifiers. I understand it is meaningless to have qualifiers on > scalar return values, but I was hoping someone here might have more to add > for rationale than "has no effect". > > Is there any coding standard (MISRA, JPL, etc.) where this is explicitly > forbidden? Or mentioned? > > -Wignored-qualifiers (C and C++ only) > Warn if the return type of a function has a type qualifier such as const. > For ISO C such a type qualifier has no effect, since the value returned by > a function is not an lvalue. For C++, the warning is only emitted for > scalar types or void. ISO C prohibits qualified void return types on > function definitions, so such return types always receive a warning even > without this option. > > I have attached a simple C function which generates the warning if that > helps anyone. > > Thanks. > > --Joel Sherrill > RTEMS >
