On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 08:34:02PM +0300, Marius Vlad wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 06:23:21PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 08:13:23PM +0300, Marius Vlad wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Marius Vlad <marius.c.v...@intel.com>
> > > ---
> > > tests/gem_concurrent_all.c | 2 +-
> > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c b/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c
> > > index 10e5357..e84ded3 100644
> > > --- a/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c
> > > +++ b/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c
> > > @@ -650,7 +650,7 @@ static int read_sysctl(const char *path)
> > > FILE *file = fopen(path, "r");
> > > int max = 0;
> > > if (file) {
> > > - fscanf(file, "%d", &max);
> > > + igt_assert(fscanf(file, "%d", &max) == 1);
> >
> > But the code is written in case fscanf() actually fails...
> It will never fail...
>
> Would (void) fscanf() be better?
Not sure if that silences the compiler though. Last I recall having to
do
int ignored = fscanf();
(void) ignored;
and then you get compiler warnings about set-but-not-used variables!
#define ignore(x) if ((x)) {} else {}
#define ignore(x) ((x) ?: 0)
/o\
-Chris
--
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
