why "(void)printf(fmt);" besides lint(1)?
Mark Harrison
harrison at necssd.NEC.COM
Sat Jun 2 03:07:55 AEST 1990
In article <1990May27.001120.13623 at utzoo.uucp>,
henry at utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes:
> In article <7486 at ncar.ucar.edu>
steve at groucho.ucar.edu (Steve Emmerson) writes:
> >Aside from getting lint(1) to shut up, why else would one write
> > (void)printf(fmt);
> >rather than the simpler
> > printf(fmt);
> Personally, this is one of the few places where I just refuse to use the
> cast. I consider it pointless clutter. If lint objects, tough.
I agree. One of the nice things about using {PC,Flexe}Lint from Gimpel
Software is that you can selectively turn off/on specific checks for
specific functions (i.e. "Don't tell me when I ignore the return value
from printf."). They put the fun back into running lint! :-)
If you would like more information, their number is (215)584-4261. Tell
them I sent you and they'll treat you right ;-).
--
Mark Harrison harrison at necssd.NEC.COM
(214)518-5050 {necntc, cs.utexas.edu}!necssd!harrison
standard disclaimers apply...
More information about the Comp.lang.c
mailing list