Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site boring.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!mcvax!boring!guido From: guido@boring.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sources.bugs,net.lang.c,net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: about void voids (Re: efopen.c) Message-ID: <6679@boring.UUCP> Date: Sat, 2-Nov-85 09:12:43 EST Article-I.D.: boring.6679 Posted: Sat Nov 2 09:12:43 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Nov-85 01:46:16 EST References: <1594@hammer.UUCP> Reply-To: guido@mcvax.UUCP (Guido van Rossum) Distribution: net Organization: "Stamp Out BASIC" Committee, CWI, Amsterdam Lines: 21 Xref: watmath net.sources.bugs:560 net.lang.c:6934 net.unix-wizards:15576 Apparently-To: rnews@mcvax.LOCAL In article <1594@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy writes: >What doesn't make sense is having a combination of compiler and lint >where one knows about void and the other doesn't. >(Sure it's *possible*, but WHY?) Well, for one thing, there need be only one lint, but there must be as many compilers as there are machines. For instance, I have a program which runs on the IBM-PC and is compiled there by a native compiler; to lint it, it use the lint on our 4.2BSD VAX, which is perfectly happy when you give it access to the PC's include files (and maybe add -Uunix -Uvax to the command line if the program has #ifdef unix or #ifdef vax lines in it). Lint's effect is (should be) independent of the machine; it checks static errors and portability issues, so there's no reason to match it to a particular compiler you're using (this will also teach compiler writers not to add non-standard syntax to the language, one of my major gripes against some Macintosh C compilers!). Please, no flames about there being no standard; that's being worked on. -- Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam (guido@mcvax.UUCP)