On 2 February 2015 at 12:18, Ola Liljedahl <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2 February 2015 at 12:05, Maxim Uvarov <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 01/29/2015 01:39 PM, Ola Liljedahl wrote: >>> >>> num_workers = odph_linux_cpumask_default(&cpumask, num_workers); >>> - odp_cpumask_to_str(&cpumask, cpumaskstr, sizeof(cpumaskstr)); >>> + size_t bufsz = sizeof(cpumaskstr); >>> + (void)odp_cpumask_to_str(&cpumask, cpumaskstr, &bufsz); >>> >> >> >> why did add this (void)? > Because odp_cpumask_to_str() has a return value that you normally > should check. If I think the return value for some reason doesn't > merit checking, then I cast the function call to "(void)". > > If you are closing a file/socket descriptor you have written to, you > should check the return value from close() because writes may have > been buffered and close may fail writing out your data.. But if the > file descriptor was e.g. only used for reading, then you don't need to > check the return value from close(). Ideally the compiler should warn > if you are not checking the return value from close() and in the > second case above, you would use "(void)close(fd);". > > I think the compiler can warn if return values are not used. Possibly > this is controlled using some GCC attribute. http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2870529/g-how-to-get-warning-on-ignoring-function-return-value
Something for ODP? > > BTW: This patch series is obsolete, I am currently rebasing it. > > >> >> Maxim. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lng-odp mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp _______________________________________________ lng-odp mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
