Howdy, another penny or two:
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:52 PM, Jim Meyering <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> The solution here could be to make gnulib provide a better declaration of
> fwrite: one without the offending attribute. Deprecating ignore-value or
> somehow disabling all warn_unused_result attributes would be overkill --
> no reason to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Meanwhile, gcc has added a new warning suppression option,
--no-warn-unused-result (or very similar). That, I believe, does toss the
baby, too. I don't know so much about the uniqueness of fwrite, viz.
why it is ignorable and fputc is not. I like simple rules that minimize
the amount of stuff that has to be remembered:
1. prefix it with an "x" and it won't return if it doesn't work
2. prefix it with a "void_" (or even "y"), and you are saying
"trust me, I know what I am doing. You are merely a compiler"
It eliminates having to remember, "does this use this prefix?"
