>> [...] 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 "pointer casts may prove troublesome" which serve no
purpose, as far as I can see, but to obscure the few real warnings
mixed in among them, warnings which usually gcc with suitable options
and a bit of discpline would produce anyway.

There have been a few cases where lint has turned up something for me
that nothing else has.  They are rare enough compared to the time taken
wading through its warning diarrhea that I no longer bother with lint.
Perhaps this is foolish of me.  Perhaps it means that the stuff lint
can notice that gcc can't is ruled out by the programmer discipline I
impose on myself (-Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes
-Wwrite-strings -Werror -W -Wall -Wpointer-arith -Wcast-qual).  Perhaps
I've just been lucky.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B