Programmers Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional programmers interested in conceptual questions about software development. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I forgot to write return 'a'; in function and return 0; in main function but its works fine in Code::Blocks.

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

char show()

cout<<"this is show function"<<endl;

int main()

i am using Code::Blocks 10.05 in Ubuntu 12.04. Why this happen and why does the same thing cause an error in TURBO C++?

share|improve this question

closed as off-topic by enderland, GlenH7, Snowman, durron597, MichaelT Nov 5 '15 at 0:45

  • This question does not appear to be about software development within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

What is the error, and why are you trying to use Turbo C++? – user16764 Jun 19 '12 at 4:08
Why can't you just return a value from each of your functions? – grc Jun 19 '12 at 4:37
@user16764 . I don't Remember the error but in code block runs fine. I want 2 know what is happening inside . i just check same thing in turbo c++ – twister_void Jun 19 '12 at 16:30

If a function is declared to return a value, and fails to do so, the result is undefined behavior (in C++). One possible result is seeming to work, which is pretty much what you're seeing here.

As an aside, in C, you wouldn't actually have undefined behavior -- in C, you get undefined behavior only if you try to use the return value, and the function didn't specify a value to return.

share|improve this answer
See also… – Martin Beckett Jun 19 '12 at 5:01
Worth noting that main is different here. – DeadMG Jun 19 '12 at 14:56

The compiler should have issued at least a warning for not including a return statement in show(). I would expect the compiler to issue a message if the warning level of the compiler is increased. As other's have indicated, not returning a value is undefined behavior according to the standard.

This program will also not have a run time error, primarily because the results of show() are never used. If you used the results of show(), you will likely get some unexpected result, including what you expected.

share|improve this answer

UB as said before. Might work today, might not work tomorrow on a different processor/compiler.

For some fun forensics, here's a fun and mildly-related thing to try (orig in C, also "worked/bugged" in our C++ setup at the time), it was a fun bug for a bit:

  • Define a function which returns a floating point in a c or cpp file, nothing complex, just float/double foo(){ whatever body; return someFloat;}.
  • Use said function in a c file or cpp file (which will assume default-int), without including the header file. Note: depending on your compiler you might need to add a declaration of the wrong type (int foo();). Our compiler at the time just assumed the function was ok, didn't have the identifier issue without an included header.
  • Call the second function (which uses the first) a few times throughout the code. Note that a value is added but never popped off the processor's floating point stack with each call to foo().
  • Be amazed how NaN starts popping up in totally innocuous operations later on. Once that stack gets overflowed (the 9th call in our case), every FP operation becomes a NAN. So you get fun stuff like 10.0 + 1.0 => NaN.

The trick for us at the time was to find that offending function, since the NaN would occur much later, and not always in the same spot (enjoy the multithread on this one).

If you can reproduce this and have a debugger which lets you check out the processor's register state easily- this is a fun bug to play with. Ours at the time was a flavor of gcc 4.1 (or maybe 4.4, don't recall the exact year), with a 64-bit itanium processor.

(sorry to the mods for the extra stuff- not sure where that goes, but it is kinda related to the OP, if not feel free to copy this where it better belongs).

share|improve this answer

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.