Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!adm!cmcl2!stealth.acf.nyu.edu!brnstnd
From: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: why "(void)printf(fmt);" besides lint(1)?
Message-ID: <1494:May2720:24:0290@stealth.acf.nyu.edu>
Date: 27 May 90 20:24:02 GMT
References: <7486@ncar.ucar.edu> <1990May27.001120.13623@utzoo.uucp>
Reply-To: brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (Dan Bernstein)
Distribution: usa
Organization: IR
Lines: 25

In article <1990May27.001120.13623@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <7486@ncar.ucar.edu> steve@groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) writes:
> >Aside from getting lint(1) to shut up, why else would one write
> >	(void)printf(fmt);
> >rather than the simpler
> >	printf(fmt);
> Personally, this is one of the few places where I just refuse to use the
> cast.  I consider it pointless clutter.  If lint objects, tough.

When I'm not checking a return value but know I should, I'll express
that by writing ``if (...) ; /*XXX*/''. When I'm not checking a return
value and don't see a need to, I'll express that by writing (void).
When I think that a return value is totally pointless, I'll express that
by defining a macro with the (void).

Just as I find XXX useful to mark code needing more work, I find (void)
useful to mark an ignored return value, no matter how unimportant. Later
on I can use these hints to quickly search through my code for possible
trouble spots.

(Getting lint to shut up is useful in its own right: I regularly run my
code through lint -haxc (and sometimes gcc -Wall -ansi -pedantic), and I
want as few distractions as possible.)

---Dan