From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24358 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2012 17:18:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 24337 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Oct 2012 17:18:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:18:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9JHI87g010647 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:18:08 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q9JHI6i6028761; Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:18:07 -0400 Message-ID: <50818B4E.5090602@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2012 17:18:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121009 Thunderbird/16.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: fix bug in compare_breakpoints 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> <20121019171239.GY3050@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20121019171239.GY3050@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00358.txt.bz2 On 10/19/2012 06:12 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> 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. Last I wrote one of those, a cast to (void) wasn't good enough to silence the warning. > 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 :-). Indeed. :-) -- Pedro Alves