Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!sequent!ogicse!intelhf!ichips!inews!pima!bhoughto
From: bhoughto@pima.intel.com (Blair P. Houghton)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.programmer
Subject: Re: Lint woes
Message-ID: <4405@inews.intel.com>
Date: 24 May 91 02:45:43 GMT
Article-I.D.: inews.4405
References: <1991May21.033422.21445@kfw.COM> <7992@auspex.auspex.com>
Sender: news@inews.intel.com
Organization: Intel Corp, Chandler, AZ
Lines: 21

In article <7992@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes:
>Most, if not all, "lint"s are basically modified versions of C
>compilers, and most, if not all, haven't been sufficiently modified that
>they can catch that problem.

Most, if not all, are hardly being modified at all, any more.

I'm relegated on several machines to trusting the compiler
warnings, since the compilers have been ANSIfied, but lint(1)
is left in its previous state...

gcc -Wall -<whatever> does a pretty good job, but the gnu
library's so screwy I can't trust gcc as a *compiler*...

(One for you trivia buffs:  the oldest file in the gcc-1.39
source code is alloca.c, dated October 16, 1986 (think about it;
gnu code nobody's altered in 5.5 *years*).  For two points and
a skip to the loo, name its author).

				--Blair
				  "Who said it?  What episode?"