https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66425
--- Comment #6 from Filipe Brandenburger <filbranden at google dot com> --- Then please explain to me how this: (void) foo(); is any worse than this: int ignored __attribute__((unused)); ignored = foo(); /* do nothing with ignored here */ You can force me to assign the return value to something, but you can't really force me to do something useful with it... In the cases above, I think the former is a much more clear way to express my intent to ignore that value, I'm telling the compiler "yeah, I know, I'm supposed to use this value, but in this particular case I really know what I'm doing so please bear with me here." The -Wunused-result warnings would be a lot more useful (or, actually, just useful) if I was able to whitelist the places where I want to ignore the values, since right now my only practical choice is to disable it completely with -Wno-unused-result. This is an example of a *real* problem that would have been caught by this warning: https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=25509#c28 And it's not just LLVM... Other linters and static analysis tools seem to agree that a (void) cast is an explicit indication that the coder meant to ignore those results, so why would gcc want to be the one exception here? Thanks! Filipe
