I don't know if I am alone in this -- I am getting a bit tired of
changes which are can be summarized as: "fighting someone else's style".
I do not really see the value in changes of this sort.
>frit...@alokat.org wrote:
>> Hi tech@,
>>
>> here are some basename(1) tweaks:
>> - remove (void) cast for puts(3) and fprintf(3)
>
>We typically leave these. I agree that they're usually pointless visual
>distractions in 2015 because there are a set of functions (mostly
>blocking IO functions to stdout and stderr) that are assumed not to fail
>unless misused, pretty much as as an API guarantee.
>
>Removing them might cause more churn than it's worth though. I'd
>probably save these for code that's being actively developed and needs
>the readability improvement.
>
>> - activate stack protector
>
>Hm? Changing the exit to a return does this?
>
>> - put includes in correct order
>
>ok mmcc@
>
>> Index: basename.c
>> ===================================================================
>> RCS file: /cvs/src/usr.bin/basename/basename.c,v
>> retrieving revision 1.11
>> diff -u -r1.11 basename.c
>> --- basename.c 9 Oct 2015 01:37:06 -0000 1.11
>> +++ basename.c 24 Dec 2015 16:33:35 -0000
>> @@ -32,10 +32,10 @@
>>
>> #include <err.h>
>> #include <libgen.h>
>> +#include <locale.h>
>> #include <stdio.h>
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <string.h>
>> -#include <locale.h>
>> #include <unistd.h>
>>
>> void usage(void);
>> @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@
>> usage();
>>
>> if (**argv == '\0') {
>> - (void)puts("");
>> + puts("");
>> exit(0);
>> }
>> p = basename(*argv);
>> @@ -88,8 +88,8 @@
>> p[off] = '\0';
>> }
>> }
>> - (void)puts(p);
>> - exit(0);
>> + puts(p);
>> + return 0;
>> }
>>
>> extern char *__progname;
>> @@ -97,6 +97,6 @@
>> usage(void)
>> {
>>
>> - (void)fprintf(stderr, "usage: %s string [suffix]\n", __progname);
>> + fprintf(stderr, "usage: %s string [suffix]\n", __progname);
>> exit(1);
>> }
>>
>
>
