Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 138875
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 11, 20262026-05-11T07:20:04+00:00 2026-05-11T07:20:04+00:00

I’m working on some code that generates a lot of ignoring return value of

  • 0

I’m working on some code that generates a lot of

ignoring return value of ‘size_t fwrite(const void*, size_t, size_t, FILE*)’, declared with attribute warn_unused_result 

warnings when compiled with g++, and I’m wondering about the best programming pattern to actually record and handle the return value of a large number of separate sequential fwrites (i.e. not the same fwrite in a loop)

Let’s say that the code looks like this at the moment:

fwrite (&blah, sizeof (blah), 1, fp); // ... more code ... fwrite (&foo, sizeof (foo), 1, fp); // ... more code ... 

I’m currently thinking about something like this, but I may have difficulty cleaning up the file pointer:

if (fwrite (&blah, sizeof (blah), 1, fp) != 1) return someerrorcode; // ... more code ... if (fwrite (&foo, sizeof (foo), 1, fp) != 1) return someerrorcode; // ... more code ... 

I think that approach is clearly better than nesting, which would get too crazy too quick:

if (fwrite (&blah, sizeof (blah), 1, fp) == 1) {    // ... more code ...    if (fwrite (&foo, sizeof (foo), 1, fp) == 1) {;       // ... more code ...    } } 

Surely there is already an established best-practice pattern for this sort of thing, though?

Of course, as I am mainly looking into this to get rid of the compiler warnings, I could just assign the return value to a dummy variable and ignore it, but I’d like to try doing it the right way first.

dummy = fwrite (&blah, sizeof (blah), 1, fp); // ... more code ... dummy = fwrite (&foo, sizeof (foo), 1, fp); // ... more code ... 

Update: I’ve removed the c++ tag as this code is really just c being compiled using g++, so c based solutions are needed to keep with the rest of the code base.

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. 2026-05-11T07:20:04+00:00Added an answer on May 11, 2026 at 7:20 am

    I’d do something along these lines:

    FILE * file = fopen('foo', 'wb'); if(!file) return FAILURE;  // assume failure by default _Bool success = 0;  do {     if(!fwrite(&bar, sizeof(bar), 1, file))         break;      // [...]      if(!fwrite(&baz, sizeof(baz), 1, file))         break;      // [...]      success = 1; } while(0);  fclose(file);  return success ? SUCCESS : FAILURE; 

    With a little C99 macro magic

    #define with(SUBJECT, FINALIZE, ...) do { \     if(SUBJECT) do { __VA_ARGS__ } while(0); if(SUBJECT) FINALIZE; \ } while(0) 

    and using ferror() instead of our own error flag as suggested by Jonathan Leffler, this can be written as

    FILE * file = fopen('foo', 'wb'); with(file, fclose(file), {     if(!fwrite(&bar, sizeof(bar), 1, file))         break;      // [...]      if(!fwrite(&baz, sizeof(baz), 1, file))         break;      // [...] });  return file && !ferror(file) ? SUCCESS : FAILURE; 

    If there are other error conditions aside from io errors, you’ll still have to track them with one or more error variables, though.

    Also, your check against sizeof(blah) is wrong: fwrite() returns the count of objects written!

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Ask A Question

Stats

  • Questions 124k
  • Answers 124k
  • Best Answers 0
  • User 1
  • Popular
  • Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to approach applying for a job at a company ...

    • 7 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    How to handle personal stress caused by utterly incompetent and ...

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team

    What is a programmer’s life like?

    • 5 Answers
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Are you running on OS 3.0? I saw the same… May 12, 2026 at 1:19 am
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer It looks like you need to register Apache::Session::Memcached with Apache::Session::Wrapper,… May 12, 2026 at 1:19 am
  • Editorial Team
    Editorial Team added an answer Use DATENAME or DATEPART: SELECT DATENAME(dw,GETDATE()) -- Friday SELECT DATEPART(dw,GETDATE())… May 12, 2026 at 1:19 am

Related Questions

I ran into a problem. Wrote the following code snippet: teksti = teksti.Trim() teksti
I am currently running into a problem where an element is coming back from
Seemingly simple, but I cannot find anything relevant on the web. What is the
Does anyone know how can I replace this 2 symbol below from the string
Configuring TinyMCE to allow for tags, based on a customer requirement. My config is

Trending Tags

analytics british company computer developers django employee employer english facebook french google interview javascript language life php programmer programs salary

Top Members

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.