Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-adm!brl-smoke!smoke!gwyn@BRL.ARPA
From: gwyn@BRL.ARPA (VLD/VMB)
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re:  questions from using lint
Message-ID: <592@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 6-May-86 13:52:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-smok.592
Posted: Tue May  6 13:52:44 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 8-May-86 20:24:24 EDT
Sender: news@brl-smoke.ARPA
Lines: 23

> C is the only language that I can remember that has a separate
> program (lint) to find and report compiler errors in source code.

First, the errors detected are not COMPILER errors but CODING errors.

Second, I supose you never heard of the PL/I checkout compiler
nor of "student Fortran compilers" such as WatFor?  Separate
compilers were used to generate production executable binary
once the program was debugged.

Third, "lint"ing is not necessary on every compilation.  I often rebuild
already de-linted software from source (e.g., when a library routine has
been improved).

Fourth, on small systems such as the PDP-11, making "lint" a separate
program makes it possible to have both better compilation and better
error checking without resorting to complicated multi-pass compilation.

Fifth, "lint" is rather portable (I use the same version on three
distinct architectures), whereas a code-generating compiler is
inherently machine-dependent.

In short, I see nothing wrong with the present set-up.