Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!samsung!xylogics!bu.edu!mirror!necntc!necssd!harrison
From: harrison@necssd.NEC.COM (Mark Harrison)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: why "(void)printf(fmt);" besides lint(1)?
Message-ID: <362@necssd.NEC.COM>
Date: 1 Jun 90 17:07:55 GMT
References: <7486@ncar.ucar.edu> <1990May27.001120.13623@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: NEC America Inc. SSD, Irving, TX
Lines: 24

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.

I agree.  One of the nice things about using {PC,Flexe}Lint from Gimpel
Software is that you can selectively turn off/on specific checks for
specific functions (i.e. "Don't tell me when I ignore the return value
from printf.").  They put the fun back into running lint! :-)

If you would like more information, their number is (215)584-4261.  Tell
them I sent you and they'll treat you right ;-).
-- 
Mark Harrison             harrison@necssd.NEC.COM
(214)518-5050             {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison
standard disclaimers apply...