Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!dogie.macc.wisc.edu!indri!aplcen!jhunix!c08_d107
From: c08_d107@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Eric B. Hymowitz)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: strange behaviour of lint?
Message-ID: <1740@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Date: 6 May 89 20:34:20 GMT
References: <1325@rivm05.UUCP>
Reply-To: c08_d107@jhunix.UUCP (Eric B. Hymowitz)
Organization: The Johns Hopkins University
Lines: 34

In article <1325@rivm05.UUCP> ccea3@rivm.UUCP (Adri Verhoef) writes:

program deleted... hope you don't mind...
in effect, it has a main() with one line: exit(0).
>
>==============
>value type declared inconsistently
>    exit   	llib-lc(46) :: c.c(3)
>$ sed -n 46p /usr/lib/llib-lc
>void	exit(s) {}
>$ exit
>
>My question: Is lint wrong, or am I misusing "(void)"?

as far as i (and my friends) can tell, lint prefers
''return 0'' to exit(0).  that may solve some problems...

also, (at the risk of repeating other people), lint must be taken
with a teaspoon of salt. :)

it also complains if you don't use the values returned from functions
like printf.

there's nothing wrong with exit(0) as opposed to return 0, if you
don't mind lint complaining.

--eric
disclaimer:  my disdain for capital letters is just that.  it does not
imply a disliking toward any person, object, or other proper noun or
adjective beyond the extent that it requires capitalization.

disclaimer: my idiocies are mine alone.  i speak for no idiots other than
myself.  any idiot who wishes me to speak for him may inquire of me;
if any idiots take my proposal, their names shall be listed with mine.