Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!ucbcad!faustus From: faustus@ucbcad.berkeley.edu (Wayne A. Christopher) Newsgroups: comp.lang.misc Subject: Re: Check the Arg Count Message-ID: <1193@ucbcad.berkeley.edu> Date: Fri, 2-Jan-87 13:09:42 EST Article-I.D.: ucbcad.1193 Posted: Fri Jan 2 13:09:42 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 2-Jan-87 20:54:20 EST References: <3214@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <4900@mimsy.UUCP> Organization: CAD Group, U.C. Berkeley Lines: 20 In article <4900@mimsy.UUCP>, mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > You still haven't explained why lint as a processor should be logically and > functionally distinct from cc as a processor. The ONLY reason I can see for > separating them is so that you don't have to be confronted with messages > telling you that you're writng tricky or otherwise dubious code. Most of the things lint points out either aren't available to ccom, or are definitely not appropriate. How is ccom going to know what is in the other files that I'm going to link with? Detection of incompatible arguments, return values, etc across modules is lint's most useful function. Also, so you really want ccom to tell you that you haven't used some of the variables you declare? Then there are things that are technically portability problems, but are unavoidable -- for instance, when I assign a long to an int, lint will complain about it, but if I can't change the types of the variables and I know that the magnitude of the long will be <= the magnitude of a short, I'll just put #ifndef LINT around that statement and get rid of the warnings. If ccom complained about it I couldn't do that. Wayne