Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site h-sc1.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!h-sc1!thau
From: thau@h-sc1.UUCP (robert thau)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: casts to (void)
Message-ID: <498@h-sc1.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 4-Aug-85 18:50:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: h-sc1.498
Posted: Sun Aug  4 18:50:03 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 6-Aug-85 20:09:44 EDT
References: <11@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1288@eagle.UUCP> <15908@watmath.UUCP> <116@rtp47.UUCP> <1096@diku.UUCP> <413@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Center
Lines: 22

> The people proposing ways of making
> 	(void)printf( ... );
> easier to enter into their code are missing the point of lint's
> complaint!
> 
> The printf() function CAN FAIL and if you don't test for it,
> Murphy says that it WILL fail, under the worst possible
> circumstances (e.g., while updating YOUR pay record).
> Instead of looking for ways to avoid testing printf return,
> how about making your code more robust.

I just checked the manual page on printf(3), both on this machine (2.xbsd),
and on one of the local vaxen (4.2bsd, with local hacks).  Neither documents
a return value for printf, under normal or erroneous circumstances.  How does
one check?  

Just asking ...
-- 
Robert Thau			        \
Keeper of the *FLAME*			))
rst@tardis.ARPA			       ( (
h-sc1%thau@harvard.ARPA			\\