Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!yetti!geac!daveb
From: daveb@geac.UUCP (Brown)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: lint and volatile and const constructs
Message-ID: <1459@geac.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 23-Sep-87 08:25:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: geac.1459
Posted: Wed Sep 23 08:25:19 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Sep-87 05:42:19 EDT
References: <832@ektools.UUCP> <6457@brl-smoke.ARPA> <7479@elsie.UUCP>
Reply-To: daveb@geac.UUCP (Dave Collier-Brown)
Organization: The little blue rock next to that twinkly star.
Lines: 22
Xref: mnetor comp.unix.questions:4223 comp.lang.c:4490

In article <7479@elsie.UUCP> ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) writes:
>Note that neither the command-line approach nor the header file approach
>will help if you have declarations such as
>
>		const x = 3;
>
>in which const (or volatile) is the only keyword in the declaration.  But from
>what I've been reading X3J11 may be moving in the direction of outlawing such
>declarations; they should be avoided.

  Iff const is a storage-class specifier (K&R Appendix A, 8.1, p192ff),
then it is plausable to set "-Dconst=auto", and have the compiler
detect when the construct is portable by barfing on "auto static"... 
  This will get you past both lint and less-capable compilers when you
go to port the porgram.

--dave
-- 
 David Collier-Brown.                 {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb
 Geac Computers International Inc.,   |  Computer Science loses its
 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, |  memory (if not its mind)
 CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 |  every 6 months.