Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!yale.edu!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: gcc and NULL function pointers.
Message-ID: <16563@smoke.brl.mil>
Date: 27 Jun 91 20:28:34 GMT
References: <17605.Jun2607.39.3591@kramden.acf.nyu.edu> <16540@smoke.brl.mil> <WB7CF-2@xds13.ferranti.com>
Organization: U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, APG, MD.
Lines: 8

In article <WB7CF-2@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <16540@smoke.brl.mil> gwyn@smoke.brl.mil (Doug Gwyn) writes:
>> No, it's better to detect coding errors as soon as possible so they can
>This is the critical word. In the case I brought up, and other similar cases,
>the compiler cannot detect the coding error.

I was talking about the software tester, not the compiler, but in any case
as I recall the example, "lint" would catch the error.