Daniel Shahaf wrote on Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 11:20:02 +0300: > Branko Čibej wrote on Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 08:14:36 +0200: > > On 04.04.2013 23:17, Daniel Shahaf wrote: > > > FWIW, lgo's argument makes sense to me. I see no reason to remove > > > (void) casts that make our code more readable because some other > > > codebases use them to silence lint. > > > > My point is that they do not make the code more readable. Moreover: when > > someone does turn on the extra compiler options to find places where > > return values are ignored, the (void)-cast calls will not be flagged. ... > > Who's to guarantee that the original author who decided to ignore the > > return value and dropped the (void) tu^Wbreadcrumb was right? > > The bug here is ignoring the return value. Whether the cast is present > or not is of secondary importance.
Having the cast means two things: - It's easier for human readers to (a) see that there is a return value, and (b) that said return value is being intentionally ignored. - It may suppress some ($CC, lint, ...) warnings. Whether it was actually correct to ignore the return value is simply independent of the syntax that was used to ignore it.
