Why does lint complain about this?

[Mark A Terribile]

In article <75688 at ti-csl.csc.ti.com>, ramey at m2.csc.ti.com (Joe Ramey) writes:
>   try(0);
> ...
 
> try(foo)
> char *foo;
> {

> trylint.c:
> trylint.c(7): warning: argument foo unused in function try
> try, arg. 1 used inconsistently	trylint.c(8)  ::  trylint.c(3)
 
> Why does lint say that the arg. is used inconsistently?  I thought
> that zero could be assigned to any pointer type.  ...

The problem is that the compiler (or LINT) doesn't know that what must
actually be passed is a  char* .

Thus, the compiler could pass a 16-bit zero to a routine expecting a 32-bit
pointer.  This is why function prototypes (ANSI C, C++) are better than LINT.

(Oh, do I expect a debate on that last statement!)

You should write

	try( (char *) 0 );

in your sample code.
-- 

(This man's opinions are his own.)
>From mole-end				Mark Terribile