[Bug c/32185] New: unused result warnings and -werror

[Bug c/32185] New: unused result warnings and -werror

[robert at linuxfromscratch dot org]

When building GCC with -D_FORTIFY_SOURCE we get some warnings which will cause
--enable-werror builds to die. I'm attaching a small patch.


-- 
           Summary: unused result warnings and -werror
           Product: gcc
           Version: 4.3.0
            Status: UNCONFIRMED
          Severity: minor
          Priority: P3
         Component: c
        AssignedTo: unassigned at gcc dot gnu dot org
        ReportedBy: robert at linuxfromscratch dot org


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32185

[Bug c/32185] unused result warnings and -werror

[robert at linuxfromscratch dot org]

------- Comment #1 from robert at linuxfromscratch dot org  2007-06-02 03:14 -------
Created an attachment (id=13651)
 --> (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13651&action=view)
Patch for fwrite() and getcwd() unused result warnings


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32185

[Bug other/32185] unused result warnings and -werror

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #2 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-02 06:16 -------
First you should be using the trunk to create patches.
Second we do check later on if there was an error on the write so I think glibc
is wrong in warning about this case.


-- 

pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component|c                           |other


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32185

[Bug other/32185] unused result warnings and -werror

[robert at linuxfromscratch dot org]

------- Comment #3 from robert at linuxfromscratch dot org  2007-06-03 00:50 -------
I checked whether it was fixed in trunk, but you're right I should have made a
patch that applies to trunk. Glibc is giving a false positive here, but the
programmer and compiler are the only ones able to know. Could the check in the
code be moved futher up so the compiler can see that the checking is being
done?


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32185

[Bug other/32185] unused result warnings and -werror

[pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #4 from pinskia at gcc dot gnu dot org  2007-06-03 02:00 -------
>Could the check in the code be moved futher up so the compiler can see that the
> checking is being done?

Not if glibc is marking the functions as warn_unused_result.  Also the
front-end would need some flow analysis to figure out if a warning is needed.


-- 


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32185

[Bug other/32185] unused result warnings and -werror

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #5 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-02-20 23:47 -------
Is this stil valid? Patches go to gcc-patches, see also 

http://gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |manu at gcc dot gnu dot org
             Status|UNCONFIRMED                 |WAITING


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32185

[Bug other/32185] unused result warnings and -werror

[manu at gcc dot gnu dot org]

------- Comment #6 from manu at gcc dot gnu dot org  2010-07-06 17:39 -------
No duplicates in 3 years, no new feedback, closing this. Please reopen if
necessary.


-- 

manu at gcc dot gnu dot org changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|WAITING                     |RESOLVED
         Resolution|                            |WORKSFORME


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32185

[Bug other/32185] unused result warnings and -werror

[paulo@matos-sorge.com]

http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=32185

Paulo J. Matos <paulo@matos-sorge.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |paulo@matos-sorge.com

--- Comment #7 from Paulo J. Matos <paulo@matos-sorge.com> 2013-05-04 21:01:22 UTC ---
This still occurs with HEAD of gcc in the call to getcwd in server.c if you
build with --enable-werror-always. It's not high priority but it would be nice
to see this warning gone (via checking within gcc).