On 14/10/14 04:14, Josh Triplett wrote: > On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 12:03:31AM +0100, Ramsay Jones wrote: >> >> Some versions of gcc (e.g. v4.8.2) complain about ignoring the return >> value of a call to the write(2) system call, since the system header >> files have marked its declaration with the warn_unused_result attribute. >> >> In order to suppress the compiler warning, check the return value from >> 'write' and, if it indicates an error (a negative return value), exit >> the process using 'die' to display an error message. Replace a second >> call to 'write', which does not provoke a compiler warning, with similar >> code for consistency. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ramsay Jones <ramsay@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > That isn't the only way write() can fail; it can also do a partial > write, in which case you need to loop and write the rest. You might > consider adding an xwrite() function which includes that logic. I did consider doing exactly that, but I wanted a _minimal_ fix for a program that is basically unmaintained. However, if Chris would like such a patch, I will happily provide one! ;-) > (Alternatively, you could use standard C IO, which doesn't have that > problem.) See the very first version of this patch. :-D (I still slightly prefer the first patch, very closely followed by the second version; this is the third attempt). ATB, Ramsay Jones -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sparse" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
