Re: ANSI-fy of ranlib, ruptime and rdist [patches]
:Joerg Sonnenberger wrote:
:> On Sat, Jul 24, 2004 at 05:42:38AM +0200, Douwe Kiela wrote:
:>>* In some cases I find that *rintf() function calls are preceeded by a
:>>(void) cast, e.g. (void) printf("blah");
:>
:> Remove them. I'm not really sure why there have been introduced in first
:> place, but this is IMO anachronistic.
:
:Various lint checkers complain when return values are ignored. This is
:a useful feature for system calls (e.g., not checking to see if stat()
:succeeded). For *printf(), though, it's generally a nuisance.
:
:I'm not sure what the state is of various linters, but I belive that
:Gimpel's FlexeLint has options for turning this off on a per-function basis.
My personal opinion is that we should not make coding/style decisions
based on what linters might complain about, because most linters are really
quite out of date. Also, C is not Java. In all the bugs I've ever found,
I think ignoring a return value (as the cause of a bug) falls so far down
in the noise that it isn't worth worrying about.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dillon@backplane.com>
討論串 (同標題文章)
完整討論串 (本文為第 17 之 20 篇)：