LINT as documentation

[Davidsen]

In article <411 at ccird1.UUCP> rb at ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard) writes:
>This is just one more argument for lint.
>
>True, lint often burps over "trivial" little problems like
>passing a *int to a function that expects *char, among others,
>but there are some real good reasons for using lint.
>

These are *NOT* trivial problems! This is the type of things which destroys
portability. On a number of machines, the format of a data pointers is not
at all the same, and passing a wrong type pointer may break the program
completely. These machines include Honeywell (I bet you care), DG, and
Cray. I was part of X3J11 for two years and had it beaten into me why we
needed the "void *" pointer and forced casts. If you think these are
trivial problems you perhaps lack experience with a wide enough variety
of machines. Portability is the *best* reason for lint. There are better
debugging tools available these days.
-- 
	-bill davidsen

  ihnp4!seismo!rochester!steinmetz!--\
                                       \
                    unirot ------------->---> crdos1!davidsen
                                       /
         sixhub ---------------------/        (davidsen at ge-crd.ARPA)

"Stupidity, like virtue, is its own reward"