Do we forsee a future where we modify this behavior of assert? If so then I would make it a requirement of the person doing that work to go and fix all assert code. I'm not sure I want to worry about this at this point in time.
So this 'hack' to make the compiler happy is ok with me. donald On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 1:50 PM, David Lamparter < [email protected]> wrote: > icc (the Intel C Compiler) "knows" that assert() can be disabled by > setting specific optimisation flags, and therefore emits a warning about > missing a return value after an "always-error" assert. > > Workaround by returning a value - this probably needs discussion and a > better fix (for all places where the code needs to abort due to internal > errors). > > Signed-off-by: David Lamparter <[email protected]> > --- > isisd/isis_redist.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/isisd/isis_redist.c b/isisd/isis_redist.c > index abb9ecd..552613a 100644 > --- a/isisd/isis_redist.c > +++ b/isisd/isis_redist.c > @@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ redist_protocol(int family) > return 1; > > assert(!"Unsupported address family!"); > + return 0; > } > > static int > -- > 2.3.6 > > > _______________________________________________ > Quagga-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev >
_______________________________________________ Quagga-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.quagga.net/mailman/listinfo/quagga-dev
