Subject: Re: Problems with lint(1)
To: Charles M. Hannum <email@example.com>
From: Christos Zoulas <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/29/1998 06:52:32
On Jul 28, 3:13pm, email@example.com ("Charles M. Hannum") wrote:
-- Subject: Re: Problems with lint(1)
| However, this is all moot, since I've fixed the bug in lint(1) (and
| another one, too).
Thanks for fixing this :-) My suggestion was just avoiding the real
cause of the problem.
| I think that fixes all the actual problems in lint(1) that I've run
| into so far -- although it would be nice if it knew about
Actually it would be better to use ___attribute__((__noreturn__)) so
that we do not run into namespace issues.
That might be a worth-while goal; we need to make a clear decision
about implementing __attribute__ directives in lint:
- do we implement all/any supported gcc attributes?
- how do we deal with ARGSUSED/NOTREACHED? It would be nice to
be consistant and use a unified syntax for all lint annotations
instead of having a mixture of lint comments and __attribute__
| There is still the varargs wart to deal with, and I noticed that
| exports symbols in crt0 and libm are not defined anywhere, but it's
| actually possible to build some lint-free code now.
These symbols need to be exported publicly, but then we need to deal
with namespace problems again.