Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton
From: hamilton@uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga
Subject: Re: Vt100 v2.1 warnings
Message-ID: <148600149@uiucuxc>
Date: Sat, 27-Sep-86 18:13:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiucuxc.148600149
Posted: Sat Sep 27 18:13:00 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 30-Sep-86 07:33:11 EDT
References: <344@sivax.UUCP>
Lines: 31
Nf-ID: #R:sivax.UUCP:344:uiucuxc:148600149:000:1225
Nf-From: uiucuxc.CSO.UIUC.EDU!hamilton    Sep 27 17:13:00 1986


>>Phil Hunt writes:
>>     Line 427 and 490, Warning 85: Function return value mismatch
>>
>>   any ideas?
>>
>>   I am just learning 'C', so it is all new to me.
>
>	The author did something like:
>
>	ptr = function()
>
>	Where the function returned an integer and not a pointer.  It's only
>a warning on Lattice becomes integers and pointers are the same size anyway.
>You can ignore such error's for the most part (it's the authors fault), but
>don't You get into the habit.  The correct method (via an example):

    i think my manx compiler would have emitted warnings about such cases,
but it didn't (i got pristine-clean compiles, if i remember right).  also,
"return value mismatch" sounds a bit like (eg) a routine declared "char"
return()ing a pointer.  i just glanced at script.c, and it looks to me like
it's all done right.  is it possible that, for example, the "*" in
	char *foo(...) {...}
got misplaced somewhere in your copy?

	wayne hamilton
	U of Il and US Army Corps of Engineers CERL
UUCP:	{ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!uiucuxc!hamilton
ARPA:	hamilton%uiucuxc@a.cs.uiuc.edu	USMail:	Box 476, Urbana, IL 61801
CSNET:	hamilton%uiucuxc@uiuc.csnet	Phone:	(217)333-8703
CIS:    [73047,544]			PLink: w hamilton