guido@boring.UUCP (11/02/85)
In article <1594@hammer.UUCP> tekecs!doghouse.TEK!snoopy writes: >What doesn't make sense is having a combination of compiler and lint >where one knows about void and the other doesn't. >(Sure it's *possible*, but WHY?) Well, for one thing, there need be only one lint, but there must be as many compilers as there are machines. For instance, I have a program which runs on the IBM-PC and is compiled there by a native compiler; to lint it, it use the lint on our 4.2BSD VAX, which is perfectly happy when you give it access to the PC's include files (and maybe add -Uunix -Uvax to the command line if the program has #ifdef unix or #ifdef vax lines in it). Lint's effect is (should be) independent of the machine; it checks static errors and portability issues, so there's no reason to match it to a particular compiler you're using (this will also teach compiler writers not to add non-standard syntax to the language, one of my major gripes against some Macintosh C compilers!). Please, no flames about there being no standard; that's being worked on. -- Guido van Rossum, CWI, Amsterdam (guido@mcvax.UUCP)