Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 12:21:59 +0100 (CET) From: Harti Brandt <brandt@fokus.gmd.de> To: Mike Barcroft <mike@FreeBSD.ORG> Cc: "David O'Brien" <obrien@FreeBSD.ORG>, Mark Murray <markm@FreeBSD.ORG>, <cvs-committers@FreeBSD.ORG>, <cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/rwall rwall.c Message-ID: <20020307121629.J99061-100000@beagle.fokus.gmd.de> In-Reply-To: <20020307060920.C81803@espresso.q9media.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 7 Mar 2002, Mike Barcroft wrote: MB>David O'Brien <obrien@FreeBSD.org> writes: MB>> On Mon, Mar 04, 2002 at 12:27:38PM -0800, Mark Murray wrote: MB>> > markm 2002/03/04 12:27:38 PST MB>> > MB>> > Modified files: MB>> > usr.bin/rwall rwall.c MB>> > Log: MB>> > ANSIfication, WARNS and lint cleanup. MB>> MB>> - (void)snprintf(tmpname, sizeof(tmpname), "%s/wall.XXXXXX", _PATH_TMP); MB>> + snprintf(tmpname, sizeof(tmpname), "%s/wall.XXXXXX", _PATH_TMP); MB>> MB>> lint(1) does not like our usage of (void)? Removing it where it already MB>> exists goes against the examples in style(9). MB> MB>I thought the point of (void) was to quiet lint(1). The point of (void) is that the programmer who writes the code tells another programmer who reads the code: "Yes, I know, this function returns a value, but I ignore it and I know what I'm doing so don't be surprised." In the given case it is obvious that the snprintf shouldn't fail. harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.gmd.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private brandt@fokus.fhg.de To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020307121629.J99061-100000>