BOOST_UNREACHABLE_RETURN(0)
or
BOOST_UNREACHABLE_RETURN()
I like it!
Ditto, added: can you add a define for BOOST_NO_UNREACHABLE_RETURN_DETECTION
to the compiler configs for any compilers that require the
BOOST_UNREACHABLE_RETURN workaround to be activated (none of those I have
access
John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If this fails to compile, we may need to add a dummy return 0; at
the end. I know of two compilers which act this way: Metrowerks and
HP.
What do you want to call it?
I'm not happy with it, but...
BOOST_NO_NON_RETURN_PATH_COMPREHENSION is the best I
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If this fails to compile, we may need to add a dummy return 0; at
the end. I know of two compilers which act this way: Metrowerks and
HP.
What do you want to call it?
I'm not happy with it, but...
Mark Rodgers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Maddock [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If this fails to compile, we may need to add a dummy return 0; at
the end. I know of two compilers which act this way: Metrowerks and
HP.
What do you want to call it?
I'd like a macro to detect that a compiler requires a return value
even when no paths return from a function. Example:
int f()
{
throw hello;
};
If this fails to compile, we may need to add a dummy return 0; at
the end. I know of two compilers which act this way: Metrowerks
