Jim Meyering wrote: > Hmm... I guess you could be thinking about > warnings from non-gcc compilers. Yes, that's another way in which > (void)i is better.
Right. BTW, I'm annoyed that one can't always do: (void) function(); but I presume gcc must have a _very_ good reason for that. > How about this adjusted patch? > + ignore-value: handle pointer types, too > + * lib/ignore-value.h (__attribute__): Remove definition. > + (ignore_value): Remove use of "__attribute__ ((unused))" in favor > + of a more concise and more-often effective "(void) i" statement. > + (ignore_ptr): New function to suppress warnings from functions that > + return pointers, and to make it explicit that one function doesn't > + handle all cases. > diff --git a/lib/ignore-value.h b/lib/ignore-value.h > - Copyright (C) 2008 Free Software Foundation, Inc. > + Copyright (C) 2008-2009 Free Software Foundation, Inc. Looks good, thanks for cleaning it up. Pádraig.
