[parted-devel] Problem with Linux "3.0"

H. Peter Anvin hpa at zytor.com
Tue Jun 7 15:55:05 UTC 2011


On 06/07/2011 08:53 AM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Yes, just like the original code.
> The reason I prefer not to ignore the return value is to avoid
> warnings from static analyzers.

Declare it (void) explicitly then...

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.




More information about the parted-devel mailing list