Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!cmcl2!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Why does lint complain about this?
Message-ID: <10113@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 25 Apr 89 06:22:12 GMT
References: <75688@ti-csl.csc.ti.com>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 10

In article <75688@ti-csl.csc.ti.com> ramey@m2.csc.ti.com (Joe Ramey) writes:
>Why does lint say that the arg. is used inconsistently?  I thought
>that zero could be assigned to any pointer type.  Shouldn't lint
>recognize the constant 0 and realize that it is compatible with (char *) ?

"lint" is correct.  With no prototype in scope for the function (always
the case for pre-ANSI C), the only conversion applied to function arguments
is "default widening", e.g. char to int.  The integer constant 0 is passed
as an int, which indeed is not compatible with the parameter type later
declared for that function.