[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t] tests/gem_concurrent_all: Please the compiler regarding fscanfs unused result.

[Chris Wilson]

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 08:34:02PM +0300, Marius Vlad wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 06:23:21PM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 08:13:23PM +0300, Marius Vlad wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Marius Vlad <marius.c.vlad at intel.com>
> > > ---
> > >  tests/gem_concurrent_all.c | 2 +-
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c b/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c
> > > index 10e5357..e84ded3 100644
> > > --- a/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c
> > > +++ b/tests/gem_concurrent_all.c
> > > @@ -650,7 +650,7 @@ static int read_sysctl(const char *path)
> > >  	FILE *file = fopen(path, "r");
> > >  	int max = 0;
> > >  	if (file) {
> > > -		fscanf(file, "%d", &max);
> > > +		igt_assert(fscanf(file, "%d", &max) == 1);
> > 
> > But the code is written in case fscanf() actually fails...
> It will never fail...
> 
> Would (void) fscanf() be better?

Not sure if that silences the compiler though. Last I recall having to
do

int ignored = fscanf();
(void) ignored;

and then you get compiler warnings about set-but-not-used variables!

#define ignore(x) if ((x)) {} else {}
#define ignore(x) ((x) ?: 0)

/o\
-Chris

-- 
Chris Wilson, Intel Open Source Technology Centre