Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site dg_rtp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw
From: throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: lint bug or bad syntax?
Message-ID: <119@dg_rtp.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 2-Feb-86 19:10:52 EST
Article-I.D.: dg_rtp.119
Posted: Sun Feb  2 19:10:52 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 4-Feb-86 03:23:36 EST
References: <180@rexago1.UUCP>
Lines: 17

> At a guess, lint doesn't parse much but instead does lots of lexxing.

Say what?  The lint utility must parse just as much as a compiler... in
just what sense does a typechecker parse "less" than it lexes?

In any event, this is indeed a bug in lint (or so I assert).  The
expression ((void)f(),(void)g()) provokes no message, but
(void)((void)f(),g()) causes a warning about the value of g being
ignored.  Clearly, g's value is explicitly being ignored in both cases.

In general, lint's opinions about side effects, lack thereof, and what
constitutes "use" of a value are less useful then they ought to be.
Unfortunately, the upshot for your case seems to be that there isn't a
clean way to get lint to accept your construct.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
<the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw