Add a return value, or change the return type to void.
The error message is very clear:
warning : 'return' with no value, in function returning non-void.
A return with no value is similar to what I showed. The message also tells you that if the function returns 'void', it would not give the warning. But because the function is supposed to return a value but your 'return' statement didn't, you have a problem.
This is often indicative of ancient code. In the days before the C89 standard, compilers did not necessarily support 'void'. The accepted style was then:
function_not_returning_an_explicit_value(i)
char *i;
{
...
if (...something...)
return;
}
Technically, the function returns an int, but no value was expected. This style of code elicits the warning you got - and C99 officially outlaws it, but compilers continue to accept it for reasons of backwards compatibility.
This warning also happens if you forget to add a return statement as the last statement:
If you don't specify the return type of a function it defaults to int not to void so these are also errors:
If you really do not need to return a value you should declare your function as returning void:
This warning happens when you do this:
Because
t()
is declared to return anint
, but the return statement isn't returning anint
. The correct version is:Obviously your code is more complicated, but it should be fairly easy to spot a bare
return
in your code.You have something like:
Add a return value, or change the return type to void.
The error message is very clear:
A return with no value is similar to what I showed. The message also tells you that if the function returns 'void', it would not give the warning. But because the function is supposed to return a value but your 'return' statement didn't, you have a problem.
This is often indicative of ancient code. In the days before the C89 standard, compilers did not necessarily support 'void'. The accepted style was then:
Technically, the function returns an
int
, but no value was expected. This style of code elicits the warning you got - and C99 officially outlaws it, but compilers continue to accept it for reasons of backwards compatibility.