On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Dirk-Jan Binnema <djcb.bulk@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Karl Wiberg <kha@treskal.com> wrote: > > > Didn't the "(void)" suggestion work? > > I actually preferred that solution, but unfortunately, it didn't > stop gcc from complaining... Hmpf. I'd argue that that's a gcc bug, forcing the user to use an unnecessarily complicated way to pretend to use the return value. Oh well. -- Karl Wiberg, kha@treskal.com subrabbit.wordpress.com www.treskal.com/kalle