https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|RESOLVED |UNCONFIRMED
CC|manu at gcc dot gnu.org |
Resolution|INVALID |---
--- Comment #14 from Manuel López-Ibáñez <manu at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Filipe Brandenburger from comment #12)
> Can I have this issue reopened please?
If that makes you happy...
> Ok, how can we assign this bug to the appropriate team then?
It doesn't work like that. Individual contributors will work on things that
they find interesting or get paid to fix.
> I can't really think of a situation in the Linux kernel source code where
> I'd find a __must_check function with a void cast, exactly for that reason,
> right now it would generate a warning.
The users of _wur added _wur to a function expecting that any use of this
function that does not assign the result will get a warning, even if there is a
cast to void. Not warning for a cast to void breaks that expectation.
In any case, I simply tried to bring some clarity of why some people are
contesting this and how you may get what you desire (and how you may not). I
personally do not mind whether 'void' silences _wur or not. Good luck!
