> My second patch removes l and also put a void cast before last > assignments of macros because technically speaking an assignment still > has a value.
And my assertion is that removing l is sufficient and there is no need to bother with void-ing statement. Indeed, compiler is complaining about last operand of comma expression not having effect. And operand preceding one causing the warning does have effect. Following your logic a *lot* of void-ing would be due starting with simplest assignments, e.g. (void)(i=1);. ______________________________________________________________________ OpenSSL Project http://www.openssl.org Development Mailing List [email protected] Automated List Manager [email protected]
