Re: return value w.r.t. RETSIGTYPE

[Paul Eggert]

Werner LEMBERG <address@hidden> writes:

> What about defining RETSIGTYPE_RETURN, to be either void or, say, `1'?
>
>   RETSIGTYPE
>   handler()
>   {
>     ...
>
>     return RETSIGTYPE_RETURN;
>   }

That wouldn't work, since "return void;" isn't valid.

Is this a real problem these days?  I would think that RETSIGTYPE is
void on all systems developed in the last fifteen years.  (So the
obvious workaround would be "don't use picky gcc when you're building
software for museum pieces".  :-)

The projects that I develop code for now assume C89 or better, where
RETSIGTYPE must be void.  So I don't even use RETSIGTYPE any more.