Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!underdog!volpe
From: volpe@underdog.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: hiding lint's ravings (was Re: FAQ - malloc array - clarify)
Keywords: malloc, Sun, lint
Message-ID: <11730@crdgw1.crd.ge.com>
Date: 10 Sep 90 13:00:59 GMT
References: <8056@helios.TAMU.EDU> <1990Sep08.022034.8444@virtech.uucp> <8086@helios.TAMU.EDU>
Sender: news@crdgw1.crd.ge.com
Reply-To: volpe@underdog.crd.ge.com (Christopher R Volpe)
Lines: 27

In article <8086@helios.TAMU.EDU>, jdm5548@diamond.tamu.edu (James
Darrell McCauley) writes:
|>How do you professionals deal with insignificant(?) ravings from
|>lint (or other high quality C program verifiers) such as the 
|>following:
|>
|>>test.c(x): warning: possible pointer alignment problem

I don't know if this will work, since my lint doesn't complain
about this possible alignment problem, but how about trying
the following?

#include <malloc.h>
#ifdef LINT
double *(*_malloc)() = (double *(*)()) malloc; /* note underscore */
#define malloc (*_malloc)
#endif

This declares "_malloc" to be a pointer to a function returning pointer
to double, and initializes it with the address of the malloc routine,
suitably cast. Then, all calls to "malloc" actually use "(*_malloc)",
which returns objects with proper alignment as far as lint is concerned.
                                         
==================
Chris Volpe
G.E. Corporate R&D
volpecr@crd.ge.com