> By saying "by design" I was implying that it won't. -- It's like saying "by divine design" then. Because, human-made designs usually can -- and oftentimes should -- be changed :-).
Just think about it. All these little caveats work *against* the main cause, and they accumulate with time. > I'm also very undecided whether it is not glibc that was too greedy in > applying __wur (which also won't be changed BTW). -- At least in what I see in our code, the application of __wur looked rather reasonable. And, if you do allow the developers to easily handle any overreach in the application of __wur (by merely "voiding" the func call)... that will greatly diminish the adverse effect of the __wur overreachments. Thanks, Denis -----Original Message----- From: paolo.bonz...@gmail.com [mailto:paolo.bonz...@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Paolo Bonzini Sent: Friday, May 28, 2010 1:10 PM To: Vakatov, Denis (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [E] Cc: Lavrentiev, Anton (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [C]; gcc@gcc.gnu.org Subject: Re: Request for suppressing "warn_unused_result" warnings On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 18:12, Vakatov, Denis (NIH/NLM/NCBI) [E] <vaka...@ncbi.nlm.nih.gov> wrote: > Hi Paolo, > > Can this design please be changed By saying "by design" I was implying that it won't. FWIW I agree with you, but I'm also very undecided whether it is not glibc that was too greedy in applying __wur (which also won't be changed BTW). Paolo
