This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [Patch] Fix build problem with system call in compile/compile.c
- From: Steve Ellcey <sellcey at imgtec dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>, Chen Gang <gang dot chen at sunrus dot com dot cn>
- Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:36:06 -0800
- Subject: Re: [Patch] Fix build problem with system call in compile/compile.c
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <c2ab3326-5227-43ff-a755-35cf75e209d8 at BAMAIL02 dot ba dot imgtec dot org> <20150106041615 dot GJ5445 at adacore dot com> <1420560255 dot 15691 dot 21 dot camel at ubuntu-sellcey> <20150107041351 dot GN5445 at adacore dot com>
- Reply-to: <sellcey at imgtec dot com>
On Wed, 2015-01-07 at 08:13 +0400, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > > Does it work to cast the result of the call to system to (void)
> > > instead? In your case, I fear that you'd be exchanging one warning
> > > (return value being ignored) by another (value assigned but never
> > > used).
> >
> > No, I tried using "(void) system (zap);" instead of "i = system (zap);"
> > and I still got the warning message.
>
> In that case, I have no objection to your patch either, provided
> a small comment is added to explain why we allow ourselves to ignore
> the return value (and since you'll be touching that code anyways,
> I would also rename your variable to something more explicit, such
> as "ignored" or "unused" for instance).
>
> Thank you,
I am not sure why we allow ourselves to ignore the return value. Maybe
we shouldn't. Chen Gang submitted a different patch where the return
value is checked. Should we use that instead?
https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-01/msg00011.html
Steve Ellcey
sellcey@imgtec.com