>> I don't consider this "cluttering up" at all.  I consider it being correct.

> I have found some rather nasty bugs lurking in code by going through
> and making lint happy with the code.

As have I, going through and making gcc -Wthis -Wthat happy...what's
your point here?  It sounds as though you're trying to say "yes, it's
good to make code pass lint", though what you're really saying is that
lint has helped you, which is not the same at all.  On a few occasions
lint has helped me too, but I've never gone to the trouble to eliminate
every last gripe, because some are just too silly (such as the dreadful
"pointer casts can be troublesome" - franchement, if you can't even
cast pointers without upsetting lint, it's hard to write anything
useful.  That's why I use gcc with various warning options instead; I
find that with a suitable set of options, it's (a) strong enough
checking to be worthwhile and (b) weak enough that useful programs can
be made completely warning-free.  (Though I do wish there were a way to
say "yes dammit I know I have -Wcast-qual on, I really do mean to cast
away this qualifier"; there are two cases where I commonly want that.)

> The only ones that have me stumped is when lint throws up a "empty
> translation unit" - no idea what that is.

It's generally a file which ends up containing no code at all, probably
because of preprocessor conditionals that dike it all out.

I'm not sure whether data declarations and/or externs count towards
making a translation unit non-empty; I've never had occasion to care
enough to figure it out.

					der Mouse

			       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
		     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B