DBX rejects some files produced by GCC, though it accepts similar
constructs in output from PCC@. Until someone can supply a coherent
description of what is valid DBX input and what is not, there is
-nothing I can do about these problems. You are on your own.
+nothing that can be done about these problems.
@item
The GNU assembler (GAS) does not support PIC@. To generate PIC code, you
@item
K&R compilers allow comments to cross over an inclusion boundary
-(i.e.@: started in an include file and ended in the including file). I think
-this would be quite ugly and can't imagine it could be needed.
+(i.e.@: started in an include file and ended in the including file).
@cindex external declaration scope
@cindex scope of external declarations
@item
Warning when a non-void function value is ignored.
-Coming as I do from a Lisp background, I balk at the idea that there is
-something dangerous about discarding a value. There are functions that
-return values which some callers may find useful; it makes no sense to
-clutter the program with a cast to @code{void} whenever the value isn't
-useful.
+C contains many standard functions that return a value that most
+programs choose to ignore. One obvious example is @code{printf}.
+Warning about this practice only leads the defensive programmer to
+clutter programs with dozens of casts to @code{void}. Such casts are
+required so frequently that they become visual noise. Writing those
+casts becomes so automatic that they no longer convey useful
+information about the intentions of the programmer. For functions
+where the return value should never be ignored, use the
+@code{warn_unused_result} function attribute (@pxref{Function
+Attributes}).
@item
@opindex fshort-enums
OSDN Git Service
