Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!oliveb!amdahl!rtech!mikes@rtech.UUCP
From: mikes@rtech.UUCP (Mike Schilling)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Compilers and programming style (was Re: A question of style)
Message-ID: <4367@rtech.rtech.com>
Date: 23 Dec 89 18:38:25 GMT
References: <1989Dec22.100135.2903@gdt.bath.ac.uk>
Sender: news@rtech.rtech.com
Lines: 19

From article <1989Dec22.100135.2903@gdt.bath.ac.uk>, by exspes@gdr.bath.ac.uk (P E Smee):
> A compiler should *never* of its own choice put out gratuitous warnings
> about valid constructs, as many places will not allow release of code
> unless it compiles with NO messages at all; and because a compiler which
> forces you to ignore chatty messages will someday lead you to miss an
> important one.
How about this:

sub()
{
	extern void (*ptr)();

	*ptr;		/* Should be (*ptr)(), of course */
}

This is legal c, but almost certainly *not* what was intended.  Most compilers
I've used don't flag this as an error, or even a warning.  In fact, there was
a posting in comp.lang.c yesterday by someone who did this, and couldn't figure
out why his function wasn't being called.  Isn't a chatty message in order?