Re: Are we missing (void) when return value of fsm_set_and_search is ignored?

On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:47 PM Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 3, 2021 at 4:24 PM Bharath Rupireddy
> <bharath(dot)rupireddyforpostgres(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > It looks like for some of the fsm_set_and_search calls whose return
> > value is ignored (in fsm_search and RecordPageWithFreeSpace), there's
> > no (void). Is it intentional?
>
> Basically, fsm_set_and_search, serve both "set" and "search", but it
> only search if the "minValue" is > 0. So if the minvalue is passed as
> 0 then the return value is ignored intentionally. I can see in both
> places where the returned value is ignored the minvalue is passed as
> 0.

Thanks. I know why we are ignoring the return value. I was trying to
say, when we ignore (for whatsoever reason it maybe) return value of
any non-void returning function, we do something like below right?

(void) fsm_set_and_search(rel, addr, slot, new_cat, 0);

instead of

fsm_set_and_search(rel, addr, slot, new_cat, 0);

With Regards,
Bharath Rupireddy.