Request for suppressing "warn_unused_result" warnings

[Richard Guenther]

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 3:16 AM, Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 29/05/2010 01:14, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>> Dave Korn <dave.korn.cygwin@ writes:
>
>>>   there is *no* circumstances
>>> under which ignoring the return from *any* function is *always* a bug.
>
>> For practical purposes, it is always a bug to ignore the return value
>> of realloc (I disregard the unusual case of passing 0 as the second
>> argument in order to free the memory block).
>
>  Also the case of calling it for a size that is known a priori to be less
> than the original size of the block!
>
>> We could certainly decide that we don't care about that fine
>> distinction, and just fall back to the weaker definition which permits
>> easy overriding with a cast to void.  But we shouldn't do it on the
>> basis that the current definition does not make sense.  We should only
>> do it on the basis that the current definition is not worth
>> preserving.
>
>  I guess that's what I'm having a hard time being convinced of.  It seems to
> me that for most of the warnings we provide, we have a mechanism to allow
> users to disregard them in system headers.
>
>  What it really is is, I don't see the consistency in disregarding an
> explicit cast to void, yet permitting a workaround such as an inlined no-op
> function that casts the parameter to void.  Isn't that just a bug, that it
> fools the warning, and it ought to be fixed?

Yes.  Please file a bugreport (and first check the proposed workaround
really works..).

Richard.

>    cheers,
>      DaveK
>
>
>