Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucsfcgl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!ucsfcgl!arnold
From: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold%CGL)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Dumb question on dyn. mem. alloc (if(hate(novices)) dont_read();)
Message-ID: <589@ucsfcgl.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 21-Jul-85 18:35:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucsfcgl.589
Posted: Sun Jul 21 18:35:01 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Jul-85 20:59:35 EDT
References: <1035@homxa.UUCP> <921@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: arnold@ucsfcgl.UUCP (Ken Arnold)
Organization: UCSF Computer Graphics Lab
Lines: 13

In article <921@umcp-cs.UUCP> chris@umcp-cs.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>Lint doesn't realize that malloc and calloc have been written such
>that that "possible pointer alignment problem" never occurs.  The
>thing to do is ignore the message (or teach lint how to say that
>a function returns a ``very aligned'' pointer; someone once suggested
>using /*ALIGNOK*/ similar to the way /*NOTREACHED*/ and /*ARGSUSED*/
>tell lint not to complain).

There is the (as far as I know unimplemented but) documented /*NOSTRICT*/.
This seems to have been added to handle this kind of case, but I have
never, on any version of lint I've used, seen it actually work.  This
WOULD be a good solution.
		Ken Arnold