Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnewsh!daw
From: daw@cbnewsh.att.com (David Wolverton)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: How to stop lint complaining about malloc()
Message-ID: <1990Jun27.201317.3217@cbnewsh.att.com>
Date: 27 Jun 90 20:13:17 GMT
References: <15130.267e60b1@levels.sait.edu.au> <16944@haddock.ima.isc.com> <16972@haddock.ima.isc.com>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Lincroft, NJ
Lines: 19

In article <16972@haddock.ima.isc.com>, karl@haddock.ima.isc.com (Karl Heuer) writes:
> In article <1990Jun24.154126.17713@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> flaps@dgp.toronto.edu (Alan J Rosenthal) writes:
> >daw@cbnewsh.att.com (David Wolverton) writes:
> >>The SVR4 lint "does the right thing" on calls to malloc(), but
> >>then SVR4's header files declare "void *malloc(size_t);" too.
> >>A lintpragma isn't necessary if you support ANSI C.
> 
> >I assume you're referring to the fact that lint can recognize malloc() as a
> >special case.
> 
> No, I believe he's saying that `void *' automatically kills the warning.  As I
> already noted in a parallel article, this really solves the wrong problem.

Karl is probably right.  But then, I'm not interested in trying to
defend the design goals of the SVR4 lint, because I didn't design it.

Dave Wolverton

<claimer>