Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!ariel.unm.edu!unmvax!bbx!bbxsda!scott
From: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Funny mistake
Message-ID: <1778@bbxsda.UUCP>
Date: 21 Mar 91 14:38:37 GMT
References: <1991Mar16.195153.15509@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <15490@smoke.brl.mil> <1891@array.UUCP> <1991Mar21.021504.25553@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Reply-To: scott@bbxsda.UUCP (Scott Amspoker)
Organization: Basis International,  Albuquerque, NM
Lines: 27

In article <1991Mar21.021504.25553@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@astsun8.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>Doug Gwyn:
>#>In the world of UNIX, we normally rely on "lint" to generate warnings
>#>about *possible* problems like this.  The compilers are expected to
>#>accept conforming translation units and silently translate them.
>
>Well,
>1) I said optional flag, so the person who wants silent complations of
>their strictly conforming programs get it, and the person who wants
>warning can have that also.
>[...]
>I would sugguest that compilers should do lint (after setting a flag)
>as part of their function.
>
>I know for a fact that many would disagree.

Well I'm not one of them.  I agree completely.  I see no reason to
run a source file through lint prior to the C compiler everytime I
make a change when I could enable certain desireable warning messages
(of mistakes I frequently make) within the compiler.

-- 
Scott Amspoker                       | Touch the peripheral convex of every
Basis International, Albuquerque, NM | kind, then various kinds of blaming
(505) 345-5232                       | sound can be sent forth.
unmvax.cs.unm.edu!bbx!bbxsda!scott   |    - Instructions for a little box that
                                     |      blurts out obscenities.