Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!mcvax!botter!tjalk!rblieva
From: rblieva@cs.vu.nl (Roemer b Lievaart)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: lint (was: Re: goto's and switch statements -- mild proposal)
Message-ID: <871@tjalk.cs.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 4-Sep-87 06:54:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: tjalk.871
Posted: Fri Sep  4 06:54:15 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 5-Sep-87 16:55:48 EDT
References: <855@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> <2683@hoptoad.uucp>
Reply-To: rblieva@cs.vu.nl (Roemer B. Lievaart)
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 26
Disclaimer: Me foreigner, me no english native!


In article <712@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM> hunt@spar.UUCP (Neil Hunt) writes:
 >In article <869@tjalk.cs.vu.nl> I (that's me) wrote:
 > >Oh yeah? How about the message I get for EVERY casted malloc or realloc:
 > >:: somefile.c(007): warning: possible pointer alignment problem
 > >Can't shut lint up about that.
               ^^^^
 >I don't know which compiler you are using, but on the compiler I use,
                     ^^^^^^^^
 >this warning is avoided if you make sure that the compiler knows that
 >malloc returns a pointer by declaring it (char *). Even if you then

I was talking about LINT, not the compiler. And as you can see by the
warning lint gave, it was NOT because I didn't declare malloc as (char *)(),
because I did.

 >cast it into (something_else *), it accepts it, whereas if the compiler
 >thinks that [mc]alloc is (int), it will indeed issue this warning.
						       ^^^^^^^^^^^^
If this is true, I would buy another compiler with more apropriate
error messages!

                        --Roemer  (pronounce "Rumour")

PS About the (pretty obvious, I now realise) (void)-thing you were ofcourse
right.
At last I understand what "void" is good for! :-\