Subject: Re: C vs. prototypes (was: Problems with gdb under NetBSD 1.0 )
To: D'Arcy J.M. Cain <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Greg A. Woods <email@example.com>
Date: 12/19/1994 12:45:58
[ On Sat, December 17, 1994 at 09:13:00 (-0500), D'Arcy J.M. Cain wrote: ]
> Subject: Re: C vs. prototypes (was: Problems with gdb under NetBSD 1.0 )
> I have never understood this. One of the things I really like about
> gcc with all the warnings on (*) is that the same tool that checks
> the code compiles it with no change to the code. By that I mean
I'd rather check my code with a lint-like tool when I can either afford
the time/resources to do the check, and/or when I know I need to do any
Also, in a full CM environment, my CM tools will know when the code
needs to be re-checked, and can facilitate the timely execution of the
appropriate checking tool(s). My minimal CM tools already know when the
individual code modules must be re-compiled, thus further saving
execution overhead in the development environment.
> the use of "#ifndef lint" so that lint doesn't actually see parts
> of the code. I also don't like separating the two steps in time.
> I know that if my code compiles (I also use -Werror) that it has
> also been checked out.
I try to keep this kind of ifdef junk to a minimum. Normally the
commented hints, such as "/* NOTREACHED */" are sufficient to notify
lint of exceptions to its rules.
> Amen. With it being necessary to port to different systems it sure is
> nice not to have to port to different compilers as well.
Now I just wish the full cross-compilation tools with GCC could be
integrated into NetBSD such that one system could build binaries for
Greg A. Woods
+1 416 443-1734 VE3TCP robohack!woods
Planix, Inc. <firstname.lastname@example.org>; UniForum Canada <email@example.com>