Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!warwick!maujt
From: maujt@warwick.ac.uk (Richard J Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: lint question
Message-ID: <83@poppy.warwick.ac.uk>
Date: 13 Jan 89 15:10:28 GMT
References: <491@babbage.acc.virginia.edu> <317@twwells.uucp>
Reply-To: maujt@warwick.ac.uk (Richard J Cox)
Organization: Computing Services, Warwick University, UK
Lines: 25

In article <317@twwells.uucp> bill@twwells.UUCP (T. William Wells) writes:
>In article <491@babbage.acc.virginia.edu> pts@watt.acc.Virginia.EDU (Paul T. Shannon) writes:
>: function returns value which is always ignored
>:     fprintf       printf
>:
>: Is it bad style to use these functions without also checking the
>: returned value?
>
>The return values of the printf family functions are not very
>consistently defined. Because of this, one should never use their
>return value.  You have to do the checking of printf before the


There are situations where you have to check the return values.
e.g. when fprinting to a pipe or socket, in this case the process at
the other end of the pipe may have died, and in this case the fprintf
_will_fail_. This was causing a major bug in a program I wrote, and
it was in pure desperation I checked the return value.

- RC

/*--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/
JANET:  maujt@uk.ac.warwick.cu     BITNET:  maujt%uk.ac.warwick.cu@UKACRL
ARPA:   maujt@cu.warwick.ac.uk	   UUCP:    maujt%cu.warwick.ac.uk@ukc.uucp
Richard Cox, 84 St. Georges Rd, Coventry, CV1 2DL; UK PHONE: (0203) 520995