On 2 February 2015 at 12:26, Maxim Uvarov <[email protected]> wrote: > On 02/02/2015 02:18 PM, Ola Liljedahl 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)". > > In current repo it's void: > > void odp_cpumask_to_str(const odp_cpumask_t *mask, char *str, int len); Yes but the patch changed that. The formatting can fail because the specified output buffer is too small. So the call needs a return value.
> >> >> 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. >> >> BTW: This patch series is obsolete, I am currently rebasing it.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
