Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 7/1/84; site wuphys.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!mgnetp!we53!busch!wucs!wuphys!mff
From: mff@wuphys.UUCP (Swamp Thing)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: Dumb question on dyn. mem. alloc (if(hate(novices)) dont_read();)
Message-ID: <326@wuphys.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 22-Jul-85 11:25:07 EDT
Article-I.D.: wuphys.326
Posted: Mon Jul 22 11:25:07 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 25-Jul-85 03:30:50 EDT
References: <1035@homxa.UUCP> <921@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Reply-To: mff@wuphys.UUCP (Swamp Thing)
Organization: Physics Dept., Washington Univ. in St. Louis
Lines: 21

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).

It seems to me that the thing to do is change or eliminate malloc and calloc.
It seems like a small price to pay to satisfy the great and powerful LINT.
Hardly any change at all compared to creating an entire new variable type!



						Mark F. Flynn
						Department of Physics
						Washington University
						St. Louis, MO  63130
						ihnp4!wuphys!mff

"Into the void boys, into the void."