https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=84573
Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|WAITING |NEW
--- Comment #4 from Martin Sebor <msebor at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
I believe the warning would be helpful because as I mentioned in comment #0:
...the only valid specialization of such a template is one where T = void
it's likely that the missing return statement is a mistake...
A function template that returns a template argument should be defined that way
even if it's meant to be instantiated on void:
template <class T>
T g () { return T (); } // valid for any default-constructible type, even
void
void h () { return g<void>(); } // valid
Warning for a missing return statement would be helpful in template libraries
that rarely instantiate all their code either during a build or in their tests.
