Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Check some returns of common functions

To:	xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject:	Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Check some returns of common functions
From:	Aron Griffis <aron@xxxxxx>
Date:	Wed, 26 Apr 2006 15:02:35 -0400
Delivery-date:	Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:02:55 -0700
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<5875df1124b997794c1db7a8332b9be3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Mail-followup-to:	xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References:	<1146017884.3007.13.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20060426082913.GA19433@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <5875df1124b997794c1db7a8332b9be3@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent:	Mutt/1.5.11

Keir Fraser wrote:  [Wed Apr 26 2006, 04:52:16AM EDT]
> The following might be clearer than doing the workaround in-place 
> though:
> 
> #define ignore_retval(x) do { long __r; __r = (long)(x); } while (0)

How is a custom wrapper clearer than (void), which is generally
recognized as intentionally ignoring the return value?

Aron

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Check some returns of common functions