>> so gcc has no problems with that.  lint still doesn't like it.  this
>> is another problem.  who's right?
>
>well, I certainly can't tell without seeing the code -- send it off list
>if you like....  :-)

the problem turned out to be a screwed up llib-lc.ln file.  i'll be
building a new one at some point.  it's "not possible" right now.

>>  are there things i should fix to
>> make the warnings go away, should i just ignore them, or should i just
>> tell lint to shut up?  a tool that won't shut up about meaningless
>> things becomes, itself, meaningless.
>
>It's the understanding of the meaning that's important....  Obviously if
>you don't understand what lint is complaining about then it's output is
>just noise to you.

yeah.  noise.

>> i expected it to have a non-zero exit status if it found something to
>> complain about.
>
>that would be very un-unix like of it, and also contrary to one's usual
>goals when running 'lint' from make, etc.  Usually you want to collect
>the entire set of warnings and nits and then deal with them on a
>priority basis.  in this case you're only interested if the lint process
>fails because of some system or hardware error.

un-unix like?  to give a non-zero exit status on error?  tell that to
cc/gcc, grep, rm, dd, sendmail, make, cmp, diff, patch, fsck, etc.  :P

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."