Two test cases that I suspect are the same bug:

==== bug1.d ====
class F { }
int foo() {
auto F f = new F(); // comment out and warning goes away
return 0;
}
====
$ gdc -g -Wall -c bug1.d
warning - bug1.d:2: function bug1.foo no return at end of function

On a hunch..

==== bug2.d ====
int foo() {
try {
return 0;
} finally { }
}
====
$ gdc -g -Wall -c bug2.d
warning - bug2.d:1: function bug2.foo no return at end of function

neither of these produces a warning with dmd 0.145

Later,
Brad

In article <dscd6h$14pe$1@digitaldaemon.com>, braddr@puremagic.com says...
>
>Two test cases that I suspect are the same bug:
>
>==== bug1.d ====
>class F { }
>int foo() {
>auto F f = new F(); // comment out and warning goes away
>return 0;
>}
>====
>$ gdc -g -Wall -c bug1.d
>warning - bug1.d:2: function bug1.foo no return at end of function
>
>On a hunch..
>
>==== bug2.d ====
>int foo() {
>try {
>return 0;
>} finally { }
>}
>====
>$ gdc -g -Wall -c bug2.d
>warning - bug2.d:1: function bug2.foo no return at end of function
>
>neither of these produces a warning with dmd 0.145
>
>Later,
>Brad

Ok, my initial report of this not being a general bug with both gdc and dmd was wrong.  I tried this myself with dmd and it _does_ occur with it as of 0.146 as well.  I didn't try with earlier versions.

So.. cc'ing digitalmars.D.bugs to expand the scope of the report.

I'll try to dig in and find this as time permits.

Later,
Brad

In article <dsrojl$oi2$1@digitaldaemon.com>, braddr@puremagic.com says...
>
>In article <dscd6h$14pe$1@digitaldaemon.com>, braddr@puremagic.com says...
>>
>>Two test cases that I suspect are the same bug:
>>
>>==== bug1.d ====
>>class F { }
>>int foo() {
>>auto F f = new F(); // comment out and warning goes away
>>return 0;
>>}
>>====
>>$ gdc -g -Wall -c bug1.d
>>warning - bug1.d:2: function bug1.foo no return at end of function
>>
>>On a hunch..
>>
>>==== bug2.d ====
>>int foo() {
>>try {
>>return 0;
>>} finally { }
>>}
>>====
>>$ gdc -g -Wall -c bug2.d
>>warning - bug2.d:1: function bug2.foo no return at end of function
>>
>>neither of these produces a warning with dmd 0.145
>>
>>Later,
>>Brad
>
>Ok, my initial report of this not being a general bug with both gdc and dmd was wrong.  I tried this myself with dmd and it _does_ occur with it as of 0.146 as well.  I didn't try with earlier versions.
>
>So.. cc'ing digitalmars.D.bugs to expand the scope of the report.
>
>I'll try to dig in and find this as time permits.
>
>Later,
>Brad

I think I've found a fix for the problem:

2494 int TryFinallyStatement::fallOffEnd()
2495 {   int result;
2496
2497     result = body->fallOffEnd();
2498     if (finalbody)
>>>2499         result &= finalbody->fallOffEnd();
2500     return result;
2501 }

line 2499 originally lacked the &.

Looking at other ::fallOffEnd methods, a few of them seem questionable, but I haven't thought through them enough to say that there are bugs.

A quick scan without having constructed test cases:

Statement::fallOffEnd
-- should that also be falloff &= s->fallOffEnd(); so that once it's determined
that it _doesn't_ fall off, that it keeps track of that?

WhileStatement::fallOffEnd
DoStatement::fallOffEnd
ForStatement::fallOffEnd
ForeachStatement::fallOffEnd
SwitchStatement::fallOffEnd
-- they don't all fall off the end, shouldn't it be:
>>return<< body->fallOffEnd()
-- in While and Do forms, can body be null?  For[each] has a check but the others don't.

Later,
Brad