Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84 exptools; site ihuxe.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!ihuxe!foss From: foss@ihuxe.UUCP (foss) Newsgroups: net.lang.c Subject: Re: casts to (void) Message-ID: <1206@ihuxe.UUCP> Date: Tue, 6-Aug-85 08:46:15 EDT Article-I.D.: ihuxe.1206 Posted: Tue Aug 6 08:46:15 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Aug-85 00:16:22 EDT References: <11@brl-tgr.ARPA> <1288@eagle.UUCP> <15908@watmath.UUCP> <116@rtp47.UUCP> <1096@diku.UUCP> <413@brl-tgr.ARPA> <498@h-sc1.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories Lines: 20 > > The people proposing ways of making > > (void)printf( ... ); > > easier to enter into their code are missing the point of lint's > > complaint! > > > > The printf() function CAN FAIL and if you don't test for it, > > Murphy says that it WILL fail, under the worst possible > > circumstances (e.g., while updating YOUR pay record). > > Instead of looking for ways to avoid testing printf return, > > how about making your code more robust. > > I just checked the manual page on printf(3), both on this machine (2.xbsd), > and on one of the local vaxen (4.2bsd, with local hacks). Neither documents > a return value for printf, under normal or erroneous circumstances. How does > one check? The subroutine printf(3) calls the system call write(2). If sucessful, the return value is set to the number of characters written, else -1 is returned and errno is set to describe the error.