Nevermind.... I understand your reasoning now to allow the failure to propagate out.
On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 09:52, A Burgie <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 09:41, Jim Meyering <[email protected]> wrote: >> Jim Meyering wrote: >>> I'll push these two change-sets shortly. >>> >>> Subject: [PATCH 1/2] system.h: define ATTRIBUTE_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT >> ... >>> +/* The warn_unused_result attribute appeared first in gcc-3.4.0 */ >>> +#undef ATTRIBUTE_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT >>> +#if __GNUC__ < 3 || (__GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 4) >>> +# define ATTRIBUTE_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT __attribute__ >>> ((__warn_unused_result__)) >>> +#else >>> +# define ATTRIBUTE_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT /* empty */ >>> +#endif >> >> Just noticed I reversed the if/else branches above. >> This works a lot better: >> >> commit 61aae73f5427c987b20604fbec5772e02edc0f74 >> Author: Jim Meyering <[email protected]> >> Date: Mon Jul 5 17:16:23 2010 +0200 >> >> system.h: define ATTRIBUTE_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT >> >> * src/system.h (ATTRIBUTE_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT): Define. >> >> diff --git a/src/system.h b/src/system.h >> index 859b663..9e14681 100644 >> --- a/src/system.h >> +++ b/src/system.h >> @@ -483,6 +483,14 @@ enum >> # define ATTRIBUTE_UNUSED __attribute__ ((__unused__)) >> #endif >> >> +/* The warn_unused_result attribute appeared first in gcc-3.4.0 */ >> +#undef ATTRIBUTE_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT >> +#if __GNUC__ < 3 || (__GNUC__ == 3 && __GNUC_MINOR__ < 4) >> +# define ATTRIBUTE_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT /* empty */ >> +#else >> +# define ATTRIBUTE_WARN_UNUSED_RESULT __attribute__ >> ((__warn_unused_result__)) >> +#endif >> + >> #if defined strdupa >> # define ASSIGN_STRDUPA(DEST, S) \ >> do { DEST = strdupa (S); } while (0) >> > > Just to make sure I understand why something else was invalid, I > wrapped the print statement with an if that basically had the same > logic as df.c (mp=find_mount_point....; if(mp){print....}) > > That, to me, seemed valid, though it would not print anything at all > if find_mount_point returned a null. I suppose it would be preferred > for the question-mark result which is perhaps what your version is > doing. Anyway, just thought I'd throw that out there. > > Sent in the e-mail for the legal side of things; waiting to hear back from > them. >
