> > Quoting  perdurab...@googlemail.com <perdurab...@googlemail.com>:

> > >We're at cross-purposes here. Any excuse *not* to fix compiler
> > >warnings better be a damn good one. I don't consider "syntactic
> > >saccharin" to be a damn good excuse.

> > But what makes you think that fooling the compiler and leaving the
> > underlying cause unaltered is "fixing" the warning?

> The better option is to check for the return value.

> But in this case, if he had voided it, *it would have compiled*,
> without recourse to fiddling with Makefiles *which not everyone is
> capable of doing*.