Re: Silently checking whether diagnostics would occur

[Michael Meissner <meissner at cygnus dot com>]

On Thu, Sep 14, 2000 at 11:30:49AM -0400, Kaveh R. Ghazi wrote:
>  > From: Michael Meissner <meissner@cygnus.com>
>  > 
>  > Rather than returning an error value, you could have the parameter be
>  > an int pointer, and if the pointer is NULL, otherwise set the pointer
>  > to non-zero and return.  Another way to write the function is to pass
>  > a function that writes the error messages, and for the case you don't
>  > want the error messages, have it record in a static about being called
>  > and return, and change the other callers to pass error or what have
>  > you for the function.
> 
> One nit with passing in a function is that attribute printf doesn't
> work on function pointers IIRC, so all the calls to the warning
> function ptr would lose format checks.  (Though I suppose that could
> be fixed.)  Sigh, that would have been cleaner since I could do
> "#pragma poison warning" to make sure the function pointer parameter
> was always used in preference to `warning'.

Use a special purpose warning function then that has fixed arguments, instead
of a general stdarg function.

-- 
Michael Meissner, Red Hat, Inc.
PMB 198, 174 Littleton Road #3, Westford, Massachusetts 01886, USA
Work:	  meissner@redhat.com		phone: +1 978-486-9304
Non-work: meissner@spectacle-pond.org	fax:   +1 978-692-4482