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)