Pádraig Brady wrote:
> 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_ g
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Bruno Haible wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Solaris/x86 with Sun C 5.9, test-parse-duration fails to link:
>
> cc -xc99=all -g -Wl,-z,ignore -o test-parse-duration test-parse-duration.o
> ../gllib/libgnu.a -lm
> ld: fatal: symbol `xstrdup' is multiply-defined:
> (fil
Hi,
On Solaris/x86 with Sun C 5.9, test-parse-duration fails to link:
cc -xc99=all -g -Wl,-z,ignore -o test-parse-duration test-parse-duration.o
../gllib/libgnu.a -lm
ld: fatal: symbol `xstrdup' is multiply-defined:
(file test-parse-duration.o type=FUNC; file
../gllib/libgnu.a(xmall
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 t
Pádraig Brady wrote:
> I noticed the use of ignore-value() recently and
> was a little confused by it. How about the attached tweaks
> to make it explicit it doesn't handle all return types
> and also remove the use of __attribute__ ((__unused__))
> which I don't think is required.
I think you're
I noticed the use of ignore-value() recently and
was a little confused by it. How about the attached tweaks
to make it explicit it doesn't handle all return types
and also remove the use of __attribute__ ((__unused__))
which I don't think is required.
cheers,
Pádraig.
>From c0cf06236aba3886d61272a
