Return-Path: X-Original-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Delivered-To: notmuch@notmuchmail.org Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 28360431FBF for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:19:21 -0800 (PST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at olra.theworths.org Received: from olra.theworths.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (olra.theworths.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jxIFZSG2Efo4 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:19:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail1.space2u.com (mail1.space2u.com [62.20.1.135]) by olra.theworths.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46A77431FBC for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:19:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-bw0-f224.google.com (mail-bw0-f224.google.com [209.85.218.224]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail1.space2u.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nANDJ7cw028661 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:19:07 +0100 Received: by bwz24 with SMTP id 24so3889339bwz.30 for ; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:19:18 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.204.11.17 with SMTP id r17mr4869095bkr.41.1258982358062; Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:19:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <1873022c0911230311o77e55fdqa5464a2dd16ec265@mail.gmail.com> References: <87skc5yd6v.wl%djcb@djcbsoftware.nl> <1873022c0911230311o77e55fdqa5464a2dd16ec265@mail.gmail.com> Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:19:18 +0100 Message-ID: From: Karl Wiberg To: Dirk-Jan Binnema Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: "notmuch@notmuchmail org" , djcb@djcbsoftware.nl Subject: Re: [notmuch] [PATCH 1/2] * avoid gcc 4.4.1 compiler warnings due to ignored write return values X-BeenThere: notmuch@notmuchmail.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: "Use and development of the notmuch mail system." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2009 13:19:21 -0000 On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Dirk-Jan Binnema wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Karl Wiberg wrote: > > > Didn't the "(void)" suggestion work? > > I actually preferred that solution, but unfortunately, it didn't > stop gcc from complaining... Hmpf. I'd argue that that's a gcc bug, forcing the user to use an unnecessarily complicated way to pretend to use the return value. Oh well. -- Karl Wiberg, kha@treskal.com subrabbit.wordpress.com www.treskal.com/kalle