From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18441 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2012 17:12:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 18411 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Oct 2012 17:12:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:12:51 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0341D1C7954; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:12:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id qdqi3OvuEAlo; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:12:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF50D1C7867; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:12:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id ED04FC800D; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:12:39 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:12:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Tom Tromey Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: fix bug in compare_breakpoints Message-ID: <20121019171239.GY3050@adacore.com> References: <87sj9c28o1.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <507FC362.5070906@redhat.com> <87lif3y27l.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <87lif2wi6c.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <20121019170014.GX3050@adacore.com> <87sj9av1hg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87sj9av1hg.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-10/txt/msg00357.txt.bz2 > A few are just to stick a comment there, and some others are to work > around warn_unused_result. Yeah. In the first case, we could move the comment back to the top, although perhaps it's easier to read an understand the current way. I also saw the ones around "warn_unused_result" and we could have used a cast to (void), I suppose. But in the end, all of this isn't really all that important. Gives us an opportunity to request a comment explaining why it's OK to ignore the return value :-). -- Joel