On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 07:49:46PM -0500, der Mouse wrote:
 > >> [...] should not lint be an obsolete tool?  [...compiler instead...]
 > 
 > > It should for pass 1 [compiling], not for pass 2 [linking].  In
 > > reality lint is pickier than the compiler.
 > 
 > This, to my mind, is mostly a failing of lint.  My experiences with
 > lint have generally involved its producing reams of content-free
 > warnings like [...]

It doesn't have to be... but that is traditional lint behavior, yes.

It ought to be made smarter, or maybe we should adopt one of the newer
program analysis toolkits.

-- 
   - David A. Holland / dholland+netbsd@eecs.harvard.edu