Date: Sun, 09 Feb 1997 19:38:57 +0100 From: Eivind Eklund <eivind@dimaga.com> To: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu Cc: wollman@lcs.mit.edu, chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: CVSROOT avail Message-ID: <3.0.32.19970209193855.00ab2b40@dimaga.com>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 01:12 PM 2/9/97 -0500, Joel Ray Holveck wrote: [Correct description of prototype-issues with K&R style definitions removed] > >Is this incorrect? No, it is correct. However, unless everybody is _very_ careful, it is likely that we end up with some functions being defined somewhere their prototype is not in scope. This can cause weirdness. >I have to agree with you here. Using NULL makes it clear that you are >referring to a pointer. It's kind of like using `null' or `not' in >Lisp. > >Moreover, assuming the OS vendor (I know we're mainly talking FreeBSD >here, but no reason not to encourage portable code writing) has >properly #defined NULL as ((void*)0) on compilers which grok the void* >type, and ((char*)0) on the others, then it will be properly handled >in a prototypeless call without a cast on machines where >sizeof(int) != sizeof(void*). (If I recall correctly, pointer types >*never* have default promotions, so machines which have different >pointer formats for different types will still die, but that's another >issue.) This is also correct :) > >> 11) Don't use in lint(1) ``control comments''. Nobody uses lint. > > I've just turned into "nobody". :) > >Although lint was handy in earlier days, I find that most compilers' >warnings are better now. I typically use `gcc -Wall -W >-Wbad-function-cast -Wcast-align -Wcast-qual -Wconversion >-Wpointer-arith -Wshadow -Wwrite-strings' in my code during >development, and it helps me catch more bonehead mistakes than lint >ever did. > >If you use lint, I have no problems seeing control comments now and >again. But, to quote rms, "Don't make your code ugly to placate >lint." I'm using a very powerful commerical lint called flexelint - http://www.gimpel.com for more info. It is _way_ better on error reporting than gcc. If gcc had been good enough, how come machine/endian.h still has a non-paranthesed expression for NTOHL, just inviting the users to create bugs? :) (I'll see if I can get at least all the header files fixed reasonably soon - but I've got some other tasks to finish first) Eivind Eklund perhaps@yes.no http://maybe.yes.no/perhaps/ eivind@freebsd.org
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3.0.32.19970209193855.00ab2b40>