Re: [PATCH] run-command: prettify -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE workaround

From: Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net>
Date: Mar 16, 2011, 09:17 UTC
Message-ID: <4D80801A.1000208@viscovery.net>
In-Reply-To: <7v7hbzaan9.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>

Am 3/16/2011 6:37, schrieb Junio C Hamano:

Show 11 quoted lines

> It certainly is _not_ "ok" to see errors from write(2); we are _ignoring_
> the error because at that point in the codepath there isn't any better
> alternative.  The unusual "if ()" whose condition is solely for its side
> effect, with an empty body, is a strong enough sign to any reader that
> there is something fishy going on, and it would be helpful to the reader
> to hint _why_ such an unusual construct is there.  It would be much better
> for the longer term maintainability to say at least "gcc" in the comment,
> i.e.
> 
> 	if (write(...))
>         	; /* we know we are ignoring the error, mr gcc! */

And what about compilers that warn:

	';' : empty controlled statement found; is this the intent?

That's from MSVC. Perhaps:

	if (write(...))
		(void)0; /* we know we are ignoring the error, mr gcc! */

-- Hannes