According to der Mouse:
>
>Quite aside from whether this has anything to say about -Wall, those
>two statements are not equivalent.  If lint has pulled out lurking
>bugs, that's a reason to use lint and read over the results; it is not
>necessarily a reason to arrange that lint be silent about them.
>

OK - it seems to me you are saying "use lint" but you are not
concerned about killing all the errors it claims to find.  I,
personally, find it better to stomp all the lint whinges I can so that
when there is a _real_ problem it sticks out like dog's nuts and does
not get missed in the general wash of lint bitches.

>I'd also not recommend -Wall alone; it does *not* turn on all
>warnings!

That was my recollection about -Wall, a most unfortunate situation but
there it is :-/

One thing that lint does pick up that gcc does not is cross module
problems.

>
>Then the message is atrociously worded. :-)  This also doesn't match a
>small test I just did:
>

(ok - mea culpa :-)
Hmmm - treating a floating point number as a char string, isn't that a
trifle dodgy?  I know this is only a quick and dirty example but it
does show that lint is flagging something that could be an error.  If
you are _really_ sure that you want to do that then use the lint
directives to kill the error message on that line.

-- 
===============================================================================
Brett Lymn, Computer Systems Administrator, British Aerospace Australia
===============================================================================