Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!oliveb!amiga!cbmvax!daveh
From: daveh@cbmvax.UUCP (Dave Haynie)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Why I don't use the newer Lattice compilers
Message-ID: <6626@cbmvax.UUCP>
Date: 18 Apr 89 21:43:07 GMT
References: <11499@s.ms.uky.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Commodore Technology, West Chester, PA
Lines: 43

in article <11499@s.ms.uky.edu>, sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean Casey) says:

> Not declaring main() as void is perfectly legal C, and shouldn't
> generate warning messages. 

Wrong.  That's perfectly legal K&R C, it's perfectly illegal ANSI C.  
Everywhere I've looked I see that Lattice is telling me that they're
trying to be ANSI conformant.  It's not all that easy, since they're
trying to hit a moving target.  And they're nice enough to offer compiler
switches that turn off the ANSI conformance warnings.  So you've really
got nothing to lose and everything to gain with Lattice V5.02.

> Turning off warning messages is not a solution, because "normal" warning
> messages (such as equivalancing a pointer to int) are useful. I think
> the original poster was justified in saying that he wanted a compiler,
> not lint.

But what compiler?  I'd like to think there's been at least a little progress
made in the C language sine 1975.  If what you want is a 1975 vintage
compiler, fine, but I'd think those who make a living writing code, as well
as folks like me who write as a hobby but have limited time to devote to
the endeavour, have lots to gain by Lattice's warnings.  And in reality,
you've got nothing to loose, either.  All they say is that you're doing 
something questionable; the code produced is the same code you'd get without
the warnings.

I firmly believe that if you haven't yet been saved at least 5-10 hours of 
work by an [ANSI conformant] function prototype at 4AM or so, you either 
aren't doing any serious C programming, or you should look into prototyping.

In 1975 they didn't have many source level debuggers for C, or 68020/68030
systems to run them on, either.  That doesn't imply that either of these
enhancements, like many of the ANSI rules, are at all a bad idea.  And
regardless of how stubborn a K&R adherent you are, if you're doing any
commercial work, there's an awful good chance that your competition is using
these newer tools.  If you aren't, you may go the way of the dinosaur or
the 8088....

> Sean
-- 
Dave Haynie  "The 32 Bit Guy"     Commodore-Amiga  "The Crew That Never Rests"
   {uunet|pyramid|rutgers}!cbmvax!daveh      PLINK: D-DAVE H     BIX: hazy
              Amiga -- It's not just a job, it's an obsession